Xeon X3440 vs Athlon 200GE
Aggregate performance score
Athlon 200GE outperforms Xeon X3440 by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1736 | 2040 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.27 | 0.53 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Athlon | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.00 | 1.73 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Lynnfield (2009−2010) |
| Release date | 6 September 2018 (6 years ago) | 8 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $55 | $215 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon 200GE has 706% better value for money than Xeon X3440.
Detailed specifications
Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.53 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| Multiplier | 32 | no data |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | 296 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 73 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4950 Million | 774 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | FCLGA1156,LGA1156 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 21 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon Vega 3 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.59 | 1.74 |
| Recency | 6 September 2018 | 8 September 2009 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 95 Watt |
Athlon 200GE has a 48.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon X3440, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
The Athlon 200GE is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X3440 in performance tests.
Note that Athlon 200GE is a desktop processor while Xeon X3440 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 200GE and Xeon X3440, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
