Xeon E-2378 vs MP 3.00
Primary details
Comparing Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 702 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | no data | 16.01 |
| Architecture codename | Potomac (2005) | Rocket Lake-E (2021) |
| Release date | March 2005 (19 years ago) | 8 September 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378 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 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 286 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378 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 |
| Socket | 604 | FCLGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378 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 MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 44 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 65 Watt |
Xeon E-2378 has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 107.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon MP 3.00 and Xeon E-2378, 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.
