AMD Opteron 248 vs Intel Xeon 2.66
Comparative analysis of AMD Opteron 248 and Intel Xeon 2.66 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Compatibility. Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark - Single thread mark, PassMark - CPU mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Opteron 248
- CPU is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- 8x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
- 2x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
- Around 9% better performance in PassMark - CPU mark: 476 vs 435
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | November 2003 vs November 2002 |
L1 cache | 128 KB vs 16 KB |
L2 cache | 1024 KB vs 512 KB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - CPU mark | 476 vs 435 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Xeon 2.66
- Around 21% higher clock speed: 2.66 GHz vs 2.2 GHz
Maximum frequency | 2.66 GHz vs 2.2 GHz |
Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 vs 1 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: AMD Opteron 248
CPU 2: Intel Xeon 2.66
PassMark - CPU mark |
|
|
Name | AMD Opteron 248 | Intel Xeon 2.66 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - Single thread mark | 0 | 0 |
PassMark - CPU mark | 476 | 435 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Opteron 248 | Intel Xeon 2.66 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture codename | SledgeHammer | Prestonia |
Launch date | November 2003 | November 2002 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $12 | |
Place in performance rating | 3331 | 3349 |
Price now | $99.95 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 1.40 | |
Vertical segment | Server | Server |
Performance |
||
64 bit support | ||
Die size | 193 mm | 217 mm |
L1 cache | 128 KB | 16 KB |
L2 cache | 1024 KB | 512 KB |
Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 130 nm |
Maximum frequency | 2.2 GHz | 2.66 GHz |
Number of cores | 1 | 1 |
Transistor count | 106 million | 55 million |
Compatibility |
||
Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 2 |
Sockets supported | 940 | 604 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 89 Watt | 89 Watt |