CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 2356 vs 2222 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

5

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD Opteron 2356 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Opteron 2356  based on its performance and cost to run.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

AMD Opteron 2356

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD Opteron 2356

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Opteron 2356

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 2356

Report a correction
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Newer manufacturing process 65 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More l3 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Lower typical power consumption 60.94W vs 77.19W More than 20% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 20% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 20% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Apr, 2008 vs Aug, 2007 Release date 8 months later
Front view of AMD Opteron 2222

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 2222

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.3 GHz More than 30% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.23 GHz vs 2.43 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.8 GHz vs 2.3 GHz More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Opteron 2356 vs 2222

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 2356
86.9 MB/s
Opteron 2222
129,100 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Opteron 2356  vs
2222 
Clock speed 2.3 GHz 3 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
F
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
3DNow!
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 75W 95W
Annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 1.36 pt/W 1.3 pt/W
Typical power consumption 60.94W 77.19W

details

Opteron 2356  vs
2222 
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 2 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L3 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 90 nm
Max CPUs 2 2
Clock multiplier 11 15
Voltage range 1 - UnknownV 1.3 - UnknownV
Operating temperature 0 - 55°C 0 - 55°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.43 GHz 3.23 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.3 GHz 2.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.43 GHz 3.23 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
AMD Opteron 2356
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 2222
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus