Xeon Gold 6554S vs 3.0
Primary details
Comparing Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S 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 | Irwindale (2004) | Emerald Rapids (2023) |
| Release date | June 2004 (20 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,157 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S 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) | 36 |
| Threads | 1 | 72 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 180 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 2x 763 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S 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 | 604 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 270 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 @ 5200 MT/s (1 DPC) |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 80 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 36 |
| Threads | 1 | 72 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 270 Watt |
Xeon 3.0 has 100% lower power consumption.
Xeon Gold 6554S, on the other hand, has 3500% more physical cores and 7100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 3.0 and Xeon Gold 6554S, 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.
