AMD Opteron 3280 vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

The AMD Opteron 3280 and Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 land in an unusual spot in the database: two end-of-life server and workstation chips whose overall average scores are nearly identical, yet whose recorded results tell a one-sided story in every single head-to-head test. The Opteron 3280 carries an average benchmark score of 1106 against 1098 for the Xeon E5-1603 v3, a gap of less than one percent, and both sit at the 31st percentile against all CPUs in the database. But averages hide the shape of the results. The Xeon wins all five recorded head-to-head benchmarks by margins between 15.2 and 15.6 percent, and it does so with half the cores. This comparison is a case study in what core count does and does not buy you when the underlying architecture and memory subsystem differ this much.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every head-to-head test in the database. It scores 382 versus 324 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1595 versus 1350 in R20 multi-core, 3798 versus 3215 in R23 multi-core, 225 versus 190 in R20 single-core, and 536 versus 453 in R23 single-core. Every margin falls between 15.2 and 15.6 percent in favor of the Xeon.

Q: How can the average scores be nearly identical if the Xeon wins every test?

A: The average benchmark scores come from each chip's full set of recorded results across the database, where the Opteron 3280 averages 1106 and the Xeon averages 1098. The head-to-head table only includes the five tests both chips share. In the direct comparisons, the Xeon is consistently ahead.

Q: Does either CPU support ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E5-1603 v3. The Opteron 3280 is recorded with ECC memory support set to false, while the Xeon supports it. For anything involving data integrity requirements, that is a hard differentiator in the Xeon's favor.

Q: What memory does each platform use?

A: The Opteron 3280 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 29.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 supports DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the Opteron's figure in the recorded data.

Q: Are these CPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The Opteron 3280 launched on March 19, 2012, and the Xeon E5-1603 v3 followed on September 7, 2014.

Q: Do either of these chips have integrated graphics?

A: The Opteron 3280 is listed with integrated graphics available on certain motherboards as a chipset feature. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 has no integrated graphics recorded, so it requires a discrete graphics card.

Where Each One Wins

The blunt answer is that the Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins everywhere the database has measurements. All five shared benchmarks go its way, both multi-core and single-core, with margins clustered tightly between 15.2 and 15.6 percent. The winsA field records zero victories for the Opteron; winsB records five for the Xeon.

That said, the Opteron 3280 still has places where the recorded data makes it a defensible pick. It has 8 cores and 8 threads against the Xeon's 4 cores and 4 threads, so workloads that scale with raw thread count and are not captured by the Cinebench suite could behave differently than these results suggest. Its TDP is recorded at 65 watts against 140 watts for the Xeon, which makes it the cooler-running and less power-hungry chip by a wide margin in the spec sheet. It also sits on AMD Socket AM3+, a desktop-oriented platform, whereas the Xeon requires Intel Socket 2011-3, a server and workstation platform with correspondingly different motherboard expectations.

The Xeon's wins come from per-core throughput and platform bandwidth. With 59.7 GB/s of quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth versus 29.9 GB/s of dual-channel DDR3, plus PCIe Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes against PCIe Gen 2 on the Opteron, the Xeon platform is better suited to bandwidth-hungry workstation tasks, add-in cards, and memory-intensive workloads. The single-core scores underline the per-thread advantage: 225 versus 190 in R20 and 536 versus 453 in R23.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Opteron 3280 is a K10 architecture part, codename Zurich, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors into a 315 mm² die. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 is a Haswell-EP part built on Intel's 22 nm process, with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. More than twice the transistor count on a denser node is the clearest single explanation for why the Xeon's four cores outperform the Opteron's eight in every recorded test.

Cache configurations also diverge. The Opteron carries 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Xeon takes a different approach with 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's larger shared L3 pool serves its fewer, stronger cores, and the recorded results suggest that arrangement pays off in rendering workloads.

Feature support differs in ways that matter beyond raw speed. The Xeon offers ECC memory, PCIe Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes, and DDR4 on a quad-channel controller. The Opteron offers none of the ECC capability, runs PCIe Gen 2, and stays on DDR3 dual-channel. The Opteron's one feature nod is chipset-dependent integrated graphics on certain motherboards, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

Specification Differences

The spec sheets diverge on nearly every line. Core and thread count: 8 and 8 for the Opteron versus 4 and 4 for the Xeon. Clock behavior: the Opteron runs a 2.50 GHz base with a 3.50 GHz boost, while the Xeon sits at a fixed 2.80 GHz base with no boost clock recorded. TDP: 65 watts for the Opteron versus 140 watts for the Xeon. Sockets are incompatible, AMD Socket AM3+ against Intel Socket 2011-3, so there is no platform overlap.

Memory support splits along DDR3 dual-channel at 29.9 GB/s versus DDR4 quad-channel at 59.7 GB/s, with ECC exclusive to the Xeon. PCIe splits along Gen 2 versus Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes. Process node is 32 nm GlobalFoundries versus 22 nm Intel. Market segment differs too: the Opteron 3280 is recorded as a desktop part despite the Opteron branding, while the Xeon is a server and workstation part. Release dates are more than two years apart, March 19, 2012 for the Opteron and September 7, 2014 for the Xeon. The Opteron 3280 carries a launch MSRP of $229; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Xeon. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is off the table for both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon sweeps the board, and the margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon posts 382 against the Opteron's 324, a 15.2 percent advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core goes 1595 to 1350 in the Xeon's favor, a 15.4 percent gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core reads 3798 versus 3215, again 15.4 percent apart.

Single-core results mirror the multi-core story almost exactly. R20 single-core is 225 for the Xeon against 190 for the Opteron, a 15.6 percent gap and the largest margin of the set. R23 single-core is 536 versus 453, a 15.5 percent difference. The consistency is the striking part: whether a test stresses one thread or all of them, the Xeon lands roughly 15 percent ahead. That tells you the advantage is architectural, not a scheduling or thread-count artifact. Four Haswell-EP cores at a fixed 2.80 GHz simply out-render eight K10 cores that boost to 3.50 GHz, and the quad-channel DDR4 subsystem behind them removes memory bandwidth as a bottleneck in a way the Opteron's dual-channel DDR3 cannot match.

For context against the wider database, both chips sit at the 31st percentile of all recorded CPUs. The Opteron's nearest rivals by average score include the AMD Athlon X4 845, the AMD Opteron 4280, and the AMD PRO A12-8870 and A12-9800, all within a fraction of a percent of its 1106 average. The Xeon's neighborhood includes the AMD PRO A10-8850B, the Intel Pentium 6805, the Intel Core i5-3450S, and the Intel Core i7-2710QE, all essentially even with its 1098 average. In other words, both are mid-pack legacy parts by modern standards.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the better performer in every measured workload, by roughly 15 percent across the board, despite having half the cores. It also brings ECC support, DDR4 quad-channel bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes, which makes it the clear choice for workstation duties, memory-intensive tasks, and anything requiring data integrity.

The Opteron 3280's case rests on its spec sheet rather than its scores: 8 hardware threads for parallel workloads outside the tested suite, a 65 watt TDP that is less than half the Xeon's 140 watts, chipset-based graphics on certain boards, and an AM3+ desktop platform. For a low-power legacy build where rendering throughput is not the priority, it remains a coherent pick. For everything the database measures, the Xeon wins, and it wins every time.