AMD Opteron 252

The AMD Opteron 252 is a single-core server processor built on the K8 architecture, codenamed Troy, and released in early 2005 for the AMD Socket 940 platform. With a 50th-percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database and no benchmark scores recorded, it occupies a strictly legacy position — its performance profile is defined entirely by its 2.60 GHz base clock, single thread, and 1 MB L2 cache. This is not a component for modern workloads; it is a historical reference point that still tells a clear story about early 64-bit server computing.

Who Should Consider It

The Opteron 252 is for anyone maintaining or documenting legacy server infrastructure that must remain binary-compatible with original Socket 940 systems. Given its single core and single thread, it is not suitable for any modern multitasking environment — the data shows zero benchmark entries, and the 50th-percentile rank reflects a processor that was mid-pack even in its own era, let alone against contemporary silicon.

For single-threaded legacy server tasks — such as running a dedicated gateway, a print spooler for an old network, or a lightweight database that predates multi-core scaling — the 2.60 GHz clock is the only relevant asset. Creation workloads (rendering, video encoding) are effectively out of the question; those require the parallel throughput the 252 does not possess. Office productivity on a modern OS would be painfully slow, but for a headless server running a single-threaded daemon, it can still function.

Gaming is not a consideration. The processor has no integrated graphics, no boost clock, and only one thread — any modern game would be bottlenecked to unusable levels. The market segment is explicitly “Server/Workstation,” and the ECC memory support is listed as false, so even its server role is limited to non-critical tasks. If you are building a period-correct system for retro software testing, this chip fits; if you need any modern workload, look elsewhere.

How It Compares

The FACT PACK lists no nearest rivals and no benchmark scores, so direct quantitative comparisons are impossible. However, the absence of rivals is itself informative: the Opteron 252’s nearest competitors in a historical context would be other single-core K8 parts, but the database has none listed. This suggests the chip’s performance envelope is so far removed from anything current that no meaningful comparison exists.

What the data does show: a 50th-percentile score against all CPUs. That means half of all processors ever recorded in the database outrank it, and half rank below it — but given that the database includes decades of low-end parts, a 50th percentile is not a compliment. It places the 252 in the middle of a very old, very slow distribution. Without rival scores, the only honest statement is that the 252’s performance cannot be positioned relative to any specific competitor, only to the entire historical pool.

Platform and Compatibility

The Opteron 252 uses AMD Socket 940, a platform that predates the modern AM4/AM5 sockets by over a decade. It is built on the 90 nm process node with 106 million transistors, and its architecture is K8 with the codename Troy, part of the Opteron (Troy (E4)) generation. The chip has 128 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache — a configuration that was typical for early 64-bit server parts.

Memory support is listed as null in the FACT PACK, but the memory bus is dual-channel, and ECC memory is not supported. That is a notable limitation for a server chip: ECC is a standard feature in enterprise parts, and its absence here suggests the 252 was aimed at lower-cost or non-critical server roles. The memory bus width (dual-channel) means the platform can move data at a modest rate, but without memory bandwidth figures, the actual throughput cannot be quantified.

PCIe support is listed as Gen 2, which is a surprise for a 2005-era chip — most contemporary parts used PCIe Gen 1 or AGP. This means the 252 can interface with Gen 2 expansion cards, though the single-core CPU will likely bottleneck any high-throughput device. The multiplier is locked, so overclocking is not possible. The production status is end-of-life, and the release date is February 2005. Upgrade path: any Socket 940 processor from the same era would fit, but the FACT PACK does not list compatible siblings, and the platform is so old that any upgrade would be lateral at best.

FAQ

Q: Does the Opteron 252 support ECC memory?

A: No. The FACT PACK explicitly lists ECC memory support as false, which is unusual for a server/workstation part.

Q: What is the clock speed of the Opteron 252?

A: The base clock is 2.60 GHz. There is no boost clock; the chip runs at a fixed frequency.

Q: How many cores and threads does it have?

A: It has exactly 1 core and 1 thread. This is a true single-core processor.

Q: What socket does it use?

A: It uses AMD Socket 940. This is an older socket not compatible with modern AMD platforms.

Q: Is the multiplier unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The multiplier is locked, so the clock speed cannot be adjusted.

Q: What is the cache configuration?

A: It has 128 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache. There is no L3 cache.

Power and Thermals

The Opteron 252 has a TDP of 92 watts. For a single-core processor on a 90 nm process, this is a high power draw — modern single-core parts would consume a fraction of that. The 92 W TDP implies a cooling tier of a modest active heatsink or a small server-style cooling fan. Given the Socket 940 platform’s age, any modern cooler with a Socket 940 mounting kit would suffice, but the chip’s heat output is low enough that a basic aluminum heatsink with a 40mm or 60mm fan would manage it without issue.

The 90 nm process node is large by modern standards, which explains the 92 W draw despite only one core. The 106 million transistor count is small, but the older manufacturing process is inefficient. For a server environment, the 92 W TDP is acceptable — it means the chip can be cooled in a 1U chassis with a ducted fan, but it will generate noticeable heat in a small case. The absence of a boost clock means thermal load is constant; there is no turbo mode to spike temperatures.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The Opteron 252 is a purely single-threaded processor: 1 core, 1 thread, no boost. This means every workload runs on a single execution path. The 2.60 GHz clock is the sole determinant of performance — there is no multi-core scaling to fall back on, and no hyper-threading to improve utilization.

In practice, this makes the chip ideal for single-threaded legacy tasks like serial number validation, sequential data logging, or running a simple web server with a single connection. Multi-threaded workloads — any modern database, web server with concurrent users, or compilation job — will see the CPU pegged at 100% on one thread while other threads wait. The 1 MB L2 cache is large for the era, which helps single-threaded performance by reducing memory stalls, but it cannot compensate for the lack of parallel execution.

The single-thread vs multi-thread split is stark: there is no multi-thread behavior to analyze. The benchmark data shows zero scores in either category, but the architecture dictates that multi-threaded performance equals single-threaded performance, because there is only one thread. For real workloads, this means the chip is only viable where the entire application fits in one thread and the 2.60 GHz clock is sufficient.

Benchmark Performance

The FACT PACK contains no benchmark scores for the Opteron 252, and the average benchmark score is 0. The percentile rank against all CPUs is 50, which means the chip sits exactly in the middle of the database’s historical distribution. However, given that the database includes many low-power embedded parts and ancient processors, a 50th percentile is not a sign of competence — it merely reflects that the 252 is not the worst processor ever recorded.

Without nearest rivals or deltaPct values, no exact percentage comparisons can be made. The data simply does not contain them. What can be stated: the 2.60 GHz single core would outperform any chip with a lower clock and fewer features from the same era, but it would be vastly outpaced by any modern multi-core processor. The 50th percentile rank suggests that, among all CPUs ever benchmarked, the 252 is unremarkable — it neither stands out as a high performer nor as a catastrophic failure.

The absence of benchmark scores is itself a data point: the chip was not tested in the database’s modern benchmark suite, likely because it cannot run the workloads or because its performance is so far below the threshold of relevance. The 92 W TDP, 1 core, and 1 thread all point to a part that was mid-range in 2005 and is now obsolete. The only numbers available — 2.60 GHz, 1 MB L2, 50th percentile — tell a consistent story of a processor that was never designed to break records, only to serve basic server functions in its time.