Xeon X3460 vs Ryzen 7 1700
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Xeon X3460 by a whopping 398% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 823 | 1994 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.90 | 0.42 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.57 | 1.86 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Lynnfield (2009−2010) |
| Release date | 2 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 8 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | $316 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 7 1700 has 829% better value for money than Xeon X3460.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.46 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 30 | no data |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16384 KB | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 296 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 73 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 774 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460 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) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | FMA3 | - |
| 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 |
| SenseMI | + | - |
Security technologies
Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460 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 Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460 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 Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | 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 | - | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460.
| PCIe version | n/a | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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 | 9.32 | 1.87 |
| Recency | 2 March 2017 | 8 September 2009 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Ryzen 7 1700 has a 398.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 7 1700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X3460 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop processor while Xeon X3460 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon X3460, 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.
