AMD Opteron 2360 SE

Platform and Compatibility

The AMD Opteron 2360 SE is built for the server and workstation segment, fitting into the AMD Socket Fr2 platform. This is a mature socket tied to the Barcelona generation of Opteron processors, which places it firmly in the era of quad-core server computing. The processor uses the 65 nm process node, with a die size of 285 mm² and 463 million transistors—a substantial chip by the standards of its release window in mid-2008.

Memory support is DDR2, with the specific capacity depending on the motherboard chosen. The memory bus is dual-channel, offering a memory bandwidth of 10.7 GB/s. This is not a high-bandwidth design by modern standards, but it was appropriate for the platform's intended server workloads. ECC memory is supported, which is a critical feature for data integrity in server environments—this is not a consumer-oriented part, and the inclusion of ECC reflects that positioning.

The processor does not have integrated graphics, and the PCIe details are not specified in the available data. The upgrade path is constrained: this is an end-of-life product, and the socket is tied to the Barcelona generation. Users on this platform would be looking at a dead-end socket in terms of modern processors. The multiplier is not unlocked, meaning overclocking headroom is limited or nonexistent for this part. The production status is end-of-life, and the release date is June 8, 2008. The part number is OS2360YAL4BGD.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The Opteron 2360 SE has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning there is no simultaneous multithreading. Each core handles one thread. This is a pure quad-core design, which was the high-end server configuration at the time. The base clock is 2.50 GHz with no boost clock listed. This means the processor runs at a fixed frequency under load, with no dynamic overclocking behavior.

For single-threaded workloads, the 2.50 GHz clock is modest. The architecture is Zen 3 per the fact pack, though the codename is Barcelona—an unusual combination that suggests the data may be mixing generational labels. Regardless, the benchmark percentile of 50 places it exactly at the median of all CPUs in the database. This means half of all processors score higher, and half score lower. For single-thread tasks, the data implies this is a mid-pack performer—neither a standout nor a laggard.

Multi-threaded behavior is where the quad-core design shines relative to its contemporaries. With 4 physical cores, the processor can handle four simultaneous threads. The absence of SMT means that 4 threads is the maximum, and the scheduler cannot extract additional parallelism from a single core. For workloads that scale linearly with core count—such as server-side database queries, compilation tasks, or scientific simulations—the 4-core design provides a solid foundation, but the lack of boost clock and the modest 2.50 GHz base will limit peak throughput.

The data indicates a balanced profile: the 50th percentile across all CPUs suggests that in both single-thread and multi-thread scenarios, this processor sits at the midpoint of the performance distribution. It will not win any speed awards, but it will not embarrass itself either.

Power and Thermals

The thermal design power (TDP) is 119 watts. This is a high-power part, reflecting the server-class design and the 65 nm process node, which is less power-efficient than modern nodes. A 119 W TDP implies the need for a capable air cooler or a server-grade cooling solution. In a rack-mount server environment, this would typically be handled by a high-static-pressure fan and a dense heatsink. For a workstation chassis, a tower cooler with multiple heat pipes would be appropriate.

The power characteristics are not exceptional for the era—many server processors of that generation had similar or higher TDPs. However, the 119 W figure means that system builders must plan for adequate airflow and power delivery. The motherboard's VRM (voltage regulator module) must be able to supply the required current, and the chassis must exhaust the heat effectively. The data does not specify a boost clock, which means the processor runs at a constant 2.50 GHz under full load, drawing a steady amount of power. There is no idle-state boost behavior to complicate thermal management.

For users considering this processor in a modern context, the 119 W TDP is manageable but not trivial. It is a reminder that older server processors were power-hungry by today's standards. The end-of-life status means that replacement cooling solutions may be harder to find, and the platform's power delivery is not designed for efficiency.

How It Compares

The fact pack lists no nearest rivals, which is a notable absence. This means the benchmark database has no direct comparison points for this processor within the current dataset. The percentile of 50 indicates it sits at the median of all CPUs, but without rival scores, the relative positioning is based solely on this percentile.

The absence of rival data suggests that this processor is an outlier in the database—likely because it is an older server part that is no longer relevant to modern comparisons. The benchmark results are empty, and the average benchmark score is 0. This means the database has no recorded performance data for this specific unit, further complicating comparisons.

Given the lack of rivals, the analysis must rely on the percentile alone. A 50th percentile ranking means this processor is neither better nor worse than the median CPU. It is a mid-pack performer, which aligns with its modest 2.50 GHz clock and 4-core/4-thread configuration. The lack of a boost clock and the absence of SMT prevent it from climbing higher in the rankings.

Who Should Consider It

This processor is not for modern gaming. The 4-core design, 2.50 GHz base clock, and lack of boost capability will struggle with contemporary game engines that favor higher single-thread performance and more cores. The median percentile ranking means it will be outperformed by a wide range of modern CPUs. Gamers should look elsewhere.

For content creation, the picture is slightly better but still limited. The 4 cores can handle basic video editing and rendering tasks, but the absence of SMT and the modest clock speed will result in long render times. The ECC memory support is a plus for workstation stability, but the memory bandwidth of 10.7 GB/s is a bottleneck for large datasets. This is a legacy part best suited for retro computing or educational purposes.

The primary audience is server administrators maintaining legacy systems. For applications that are single-threaded and not demanding, the Opteron 2360 SE can still function. It is a stable, well-understood platform with ECC memory support. However, the end-of-life status means that security patches and BIOS updates are no longer forthcoming. The launch MSRP was $1165, which was a significant investment at the time, but the processor is now obsolete.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Opteron 2360 SE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory is supported, which is critical for data integrity in server workloads.

Q: What is the socket type for this processor?

A: It uses AMD Socket Fr2, which is specific to the Barcelona generation of Opteron processors.

Q: How many cores and threads does it have?

A: It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the base clock speed?

A: The base clock is 2.50 GHz, and there is no boost clock listed.

Q: Is this processor still in production?

A: No, it is end-of-life, having been released on June 8, 2008.

Q: What is the TDP of this processor?

A: The thermal design power is 119 watts, requiring a capable cooling solution.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark data for the AMD Opteron 2360 SE is sparse. The benchmarks array is empty, and the average benchmark score is 0. The percentile vs all CPUs is 50, which places it at the exact median of the database. This is a meaningful data point: it indicates that the processor is neither a high-performer nor a low-performer relative to all CPUs tracked.

The lack of rival data is a significant limitation. Without nearest rivals, there are no deltaPct values to compare. The analysis cannot state that this processor is "30% ahead of X" or "20% behind Y" because no such data exists in the fact pack. The percentile is the only quantitative anchor.

The 50th percentile has implications. In a database that includes a wide range of CPUs from different eras, the median is likely dominated by older and mid-range parts. The Opteron 2360 SE, with its 4 cores at 2.50 GHz, fits this profile. It is not a low-end part—there are many CPUs below it—but it is not a high-end part either.

The empty benchmark scores suggest that this processor was either not tested or the tests were not recorded. This is common for end-of-life server parts that are no longer of interest to benchmarkers. The 0 average score should not be interpreted as "zero performance"—it is a placeholder for missing data.

Given the specifications, the multi-thread performance would be determined by the 4 physical cores. In a synthetic benchmark that scales with core count, this processor would score higher than a dual-core part but lower than a 6-core or 8-core part. The 2.50 GHz clock is the limiting factor for single-thread scores. The absence of a boost clock means that the processor cannot dynamically increase its frequency when only one core is active, which modern CPUs do to improve single-thread performance.

The memory bandwidth of 10.7 GB/s is another constraint. In memory-intensive benchmarks, this figure will cap performance. A modern processor with dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 will have significantly higher bandwidth, allowing it to feed data to the cores faster.

In summary, the benchmark performance of the Opteron 2360 SE is defined by its median percentile and the absence of comparative data. It is a mid-pack server processor from an older generation, with predictable performance characteristics based on its core count and clock speed. The 50th percentile is a fair representation of its standing: unremarkable in both directions.