Xeon D-1848TER vs Athlon 64 3500+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | San Diego (2001−2005) | no data |
| Release date | January 2001 (23 years ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 15360 KB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | no data |
| Die size | 230 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 227 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER 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 | no data |
| Socket | 939 | FCBGA2227 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 57 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 24 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 4 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 10 |
| Threads | 1 | 20 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 57 Watt |
Xeon D-1848TER has 900% more physical cores and 1900% more threads, and 56.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon 64 3500+ is a desktop processor while Xeon D-1848TER is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon 64 3500+ and Xeon D-1848TER, 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.
