Xeon MP 3.16 vs Opteron 240
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 240 and Xeon MP 3.16 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 | Server | Server |
| Architecture codename | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Potomac (2005) |
| Release date | April 2003 (21 year ago) | March 2005 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 240 and Xeon MP 3.16 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 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 3.17 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 8 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 286 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 240 and Xeon MP 3.16 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 | 1 |
| Socket | 940 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 135 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 240 and Xeon MP 3.16. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 135 Watt |
Opteron 240 has 58.8% lower power consumption.
Xeon MP 3.16, on the other hand, has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Opteron 240 and Xeon MP 3.16. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 240 and Xeon MP 3.16, 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.
