Xeon E-2486 vs MP 3.16
Primary details
Comparing Xeon MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486 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 | Potomac (2005) | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) |
| Release date | March 2005 (19 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $506 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486 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 | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.17 GHz | 5.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 16 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 18 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 163 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 286 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486 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 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486. 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 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486 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 3.16 and Xeon E-2486. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| 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 MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486.
| PCIe version | no data | 5 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 6 |
| Threads | 1 | 12 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 95 Watt |
Xeon E-2486 has 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and 42.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon MP 3.16 and Xeon E-2486, 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.
