Xeon 3.20 vs Opteron 154
Aggregate performance score
Xeon 3.20 outperforms Opteron 154 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 154 and Xeon 3.20 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3113 | 3099 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.26 | 0.29 |
| Architecture codename | Venus (2004−2005) | Gallatin (2003−2004) |
| Release date | 2 August 2005 (19 years ago) | October 2003 (21 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 154 and Xeon 3.20 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 115 mm2 | 237 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 114 million | 286 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 154 and Xeon 3.20 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 | 2 |
| Socket | 939 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 104 Watt | 97 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 154 and Xeon 3.20. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 0.30 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 104 Watt | 97 Watt |
Opteron 154 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon 3.20, on the other hand, has a 3.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 7.2% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Opteron 154 and Xeon 3.20.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 154 and Xeon 3.20, 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.
