Opteron 248 vs Xeon 3.20

Opteron 248 vs Xeon 3.20 Performance Spectrum

Opteron 248

1 / 1

585

+1.7%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 3.20

1 / 1

575

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 248 vs Xeon 3.20 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 248 vs Xeon 3.20: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Opteron 248

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.1% higher average FPS across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 89W instead of 97W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Xeon 3.20

2003

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Opteron 248 across 31 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (575 vs 585).
❌Launch MSRP is still $851 MSRP, while Opteron 248 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Opteron 248 better than Xeon 3.20?

Yes. Opteron 248 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.1% average FPS lead across 31 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.7% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Opteron 248 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.1% more average FPS across 31 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Opteron 248 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Opteron 248 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon 3.20 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Opteron 248 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $851 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.1% average FPS lead across 31 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon 3.20 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (0.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Opteron 248 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 248 vs Xeon 3.20 Technical Specifications

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

Opteron 248

The Opteron 248 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Novembro 2003 (22 years ago). It is based on the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.2 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: 585 points. Launch price was $12.

Xeon 3.20

The Xeon 3.20 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: 3.2 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: 575 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Opteron 248 and Xeon 3.20 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Opteron 248 versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon 3.20 — a 37% clock advantage for the Xeon 3.20. The Opteron 248 uses the SledgeHammer (2003−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Xeon 3.20 uses Gallatin (2003−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Opteron 248 scores 585 against the Xeon 3.20's 575 — a 1.7% lead for the Opteron 248. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Opteron 248 vs 2 MB on the Xeon 3.20.

Feature	Opteron 248	Xeon 3.20
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	3.2 GHz+45%
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	585+2%	575

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Opteron 248 uses the 940 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 3.20 uses PGA604 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.