Apple M1 vs Xeon 3.06
Aggregate performance score
Apple M1 outperforms Xeon 3.06 by a whopping 1421% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon 3.06 and Apple M1 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3066 | 1194 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Apple Apple M-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.33 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Gallatin (2003−2004) | no data |
| Release date | March 2003 (21 year ago) | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon 3.06 and Apple M1 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.064 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.07 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 16K | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 237 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 286 million | 16000 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 3.06 and Apple M1 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 | 604 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 97 Watt | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Apple M1 8-Core GPU |
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 | 0.34 | 5.17 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm |
Apple M1 has a 1420.6% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 2500% more advanced lithography process.
The Apple M1 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon 3.06 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon 3.06 is a server/workstation processor while Apple M1 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 3.06 and Apple M1, 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.
