Opteron 246 vs Xeon 3.06

Opteron 246 vs Xeon 3.06 Performance Spectrum

Opteron 246

1 / 1

538

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 3.06

1 / 1

535

0.0%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Opteron 246 vs Xeon 3.06 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Opteron 246 vs Xeon 3.06: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Opteron 246

2003

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 89W instead of 97W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Xeon 3.06

2003

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (535 vs 538).

Quick Answers

So, is Opteron 246 better than Xeon 3.06?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon 3.06 is ahead with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 46 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Opteron 246 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Opteron 246 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Opteron 246 still makes the most sense overall. Opteron 246 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Opteron 246 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Opteron 246 vs Xeon 3.06 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Opteron 246

The Opteron 246 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Agosto 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 940. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 538 points. Launch price was $109.

Xeon 3.06

The Xeon 3.06 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Gallatin (2003−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 3.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA604. Thermal design power (TDP): 97 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 535 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Opteron 246 and Xeon 3.06 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Opteron 246 versus 3.07 GHz on the Xeon 3.06 — a 42.2% clock advantage for the Xeon 3.06. The Opteron 246 uses the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Xeon 3.06 uses Gallatin (2003−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Opteron 246 scores 538 against the Xeon 3.06's 535 — a 0.6% lead for the Opteron 246. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Opteron 246 vs 2 MB on the Xeon 3.06.

Feature	Opteron 246	Xeon 3.06
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2 GHz	3.07 GHz+53%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	130 nm	130 nm
Architecture	SledgeHammer (2003−2005)	Gallatin (2003−2004)
PassMark	538	535

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Opteron 246 uses the 940 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 3.06 uses PGA604 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.