Xeon D-2832NT vs Opteron 43CX EE
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT 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 | Seoul (2012) | no data |
| Release date | 4 December 2012 (11 years ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 8192 KB (shared) | 15 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | no data |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT 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 | 2 | no data |
| Socket | C32 | FCBGA2579 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| 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
Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT 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 Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 32 |
| 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
| Recency | 4 December 2012 | 1 October 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
Opteron 43CX EE has 100% lower power consumption.
Xeon D-2832NT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 43CX EE and Xeon D-2832NT, 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.
