Ryzen 5 2600 vs Xeon 3.2
Primary details
Comparing Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 903 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 22 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.84 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.08 |
| Architecture codename | Irwindale (2004) | Pinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018) |
| Release date | June 2004 (20 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600 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) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 34 |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 3 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 178 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 604 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 6 |
| Threads | 1 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen 5 2600 has 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, a 650% more advanced lithography process, and 107.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon 3.2 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 5 2600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 3.2 and Ryzen 5 2600, 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.
