CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results between the AMD Opteron 3280 and the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 are exceptionally close, with the AMD part winning every single test by a narrow margin. Across five Cinebench comparisons, the Opteron 3280 takes all five wins, but the largest delta is a mere 0.5%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron 3280 scores 324 against the Xeon's 323, a 0.3% advantage. The R20 multi-core test repeats the pattern: 1350 versus 1346, again a 0.3% delta. Single-core results are similarly tight, the Opteron leads 190 to 189 in R20 single-core, its biggest win at 0.5%, and 453 to 452 in R23 single-core, a 0.2% edge. The R23 multi-core test rounds out the sweep with 3215 against 3207, another 0.2% margin.

These deltas are within run-to-run noise territory for most workloads. The data shows a consistent but tiny advantage for the AMD chip. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 has zero wins in the head-to-head set, yet its average benchmark score of 1103 sits only three points below the Opteron's 1106. Both processors occupy the 31st percentile among all CPUs, reinforcing that their overall performance tiers are effectively identical.

Looking at the nearest rival lists, each chip lands in similar company. The Opteron 3280's closest competitor is the AMD Athlon X4 845 at an identical 1106 average score. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 matches up against the Intel Pentium Gold G6605 at 1103. Notably, the two processors appear in each other's rival lists: the Xeon is 0.3% behind the Opteron in average score, while the Opteron's list shows the PRO A12-9800 at 0.2% ahead. The practical takeaway: neither chip has a meaningful performance edge in synthetic rendering benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two parts is substantial, even though benchmark scores converge. The AMD Opteron 3280 is built on the K10 architecture, codenamed Zurich, using a 32nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 uses Intel's Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, on a 22nm process from Intel, with 6 cores and 6 threads but a significantly lower base clock of 1600 MHz and no boost clock at all.

Transistor counts differ sharply: the Opteron contains 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die, while the Xeon packs 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The Intel chip's newer process node allows roughly double the transistor density.

Cache layouts diverge in organization. The Opteron has 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Xeon offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 15 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's per-core cache structure scales with core count, whereas the Opteron uses fixed pool sizes.

Memory support reflects different platform generations. The Opteron runs DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 29.9 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The Xeon supports DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth and includes ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Opteron is limited to Gen 2, while the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU alone.

The Opteron relies on chipset-based integrated graphics on certain motherboards, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The AMD part targets the desktop market segment on Socket AM3+, whereas the Xeon is a server/workstation part on Socket 2011-3. Both are end-of-life products, with the Opteron released in March 2012 and the Xeon in September 2014.

Where Each One Wins

The Opteron 3280 wins every benchmark test, but the margins are so small that practical wins depend on workload specifics rather than raw score differences.

For multi-threaded rendering, the Opteron's 8 cores versus the Xeon's 6 cores provide the structural advantage. The R15 and R20 multi-core tests show the Opteron ahead by 0.3%, and R23 multi-core by 0.2%. The higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz helps sustain single-threaded performance, where it leads by 0.5% in R20 and 0.2% in R23.

The Xeon E5-2603 v3's strengths are architectural rather than benchmark-visible. Its quad-channel DDR4 memory bus delivers 51.2 GB/s versus the Opteron's 29.9 GB/s, a 71% bandwidth advantage that matters for memory-bound server workloads. ECC memory support makes it appropriate for error-sensitive environments. The 15 MB shared L3 cache is nearly double the Opteron's 8 MB, potentially benefiting workloads with large working sets. PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes offers more I/O throughput than the Opteron's Gen 2.

In single-threaded tasks, the Opteron's higher clock speeds (2.50 GHz base, 3.50 GHz boost) give it the edge over the Xeon's fixed 1600 MHz. The benchmark deltas reflect this, though the margin is under 1%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Opteron 3280 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What are the base clock speeds of each chip?

A: The Opteron 3280 runs at a 2.50 GHz base clock with a 3.50 GHz boost clock. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 has a 1600 MHz base clock and no boost clock.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-2603 v3 supports ECC memory. The Opteron 3280 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The Opteron 3280 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 supports DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Opteron 3280 has an average benchmark score of 1106, while the Xeon E5-2603 v3 scores 1103. The Xeon trails by 0.3%.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5-2603 v3 has 15 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the Opteron 3280's 8 MB of shared L3.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Opteron 3280 | Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 1600 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | None |

| TDP | 65 W | 85 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | K10 | Haswell |

| Codename | Zurich | Haswell-EP |

| Generation | Opteron (Zurich) | Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,200 million | 2,600 million |

| Die Size | 315 mm² | 356 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 8 MB | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 15 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 29.9 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | March 2012 | September 2014 |

| Launch MSRP | $229 | $213 |

| Part Number | OS3280OLW8KGU | SR20A |

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a paradox: the AMD Opteron 3280 wins all five Cinebench comparisons, but the margins are so thin, 0.2% to 0.5%, that they hold no practical significance for real-world performance. Both chips sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, and their average scores differ by just three points (1106 versus 1103).

The choice between them should be driven by platform needs rather than raw speed. The Opteron 3280 suits desktop builds where its 65W TDP, higher clock speeds, and 8-core configuration are advantageous. Its lower power draw and boost clock make it the better fit for single-threaded responsiveness and power-conscious systems.

The Xeon E5-2603 v3 is the appropriate pick for server or workstation environments where ECC memory, quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes matter more than clock speed. Its 15 MB L3 cache and 2,600 million transistors reflect a more modern architecture, even if Cinebench scores don't show it. The Xeon's 85W TDP is higher, but its memory bandwidth is 71% greater than the Opteron's.

For users prioritizing benchmark scores alone, the data shows a negligible edge for the Opteron. For users prioritizing platform features, memory capacity, and data integrity, the Xeon's architectural advantages make it the logical choice. The Opteron's release in March 2012 and the Xeon's September 2014 launch date mean the Intel part benefits from a newer process node and design, but both are end-of-life products with no future support implications to consider.