Athlon X4 970 vs Xeon X3230
Aggregate performance score
Athlon X4 970 outperforms Xeon X3230 by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X3230 and Athlon X4 970 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2270 | 2060 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.29 | 2.43 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 1 July 2007 (17 years ago) | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3230 and Athlon X4 970 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 | no data | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | no data | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 60 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3230 and Athlon X4 970 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3230 and Athlon X4 970. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon X3230 and Athlon X4 970 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X3230 and Athlon X4 970 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3230 and Athlon X4 970. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Dual-channel |
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 | 1.32 | 1.70 |
| Recency | 1 July 2007 | 27 July 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Athlon X4 970 has a 28.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.
The Athlon X4 970 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X3230 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon X3230 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon X4 970 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3230 and Athlon X4 970, 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.
