CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5630 and AMD Opteron 3280 are end-of-life server and desktop processors, respectively, that land in nearly the same performance bracket despite their architectural differences. Benchmark data places both at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, with average scores of 1110 for the Intel part and 1106 for the AMD part. The Xeon E5630 takes a narrow victory across every head-to-head test, but the margins are so slim, never exceeding 0.5%, that the real story lies in how each chip achieves its results through fundamentally different design philosophies.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5630 is the clean sweep winner in the benchmark suite, taking all five head-to-head tests. However, the victory is purely symbolic in terms of magnitude. In Cinebench R15 multicore, both chips post an identical score of 324, with the Intel part declared the winner on a tie-breaker. The largest advantage for the Xeon comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 191 against the Opteron's 190, a 0.5% edge. Across the other tests, the deltas shrink to 0.3% in R20 multicore, 0.3% in R23 multicore, and 0.4% in R23 single-core.

For practical workloads, these differences are negligible. The Opteron 3280 does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head set, but its performance profile suggests it matches the Xeon in heavily threaded scenarios where its eight physical cores can flex their muscle. The Xeon, with four cores and eight threads, relies on Hyper-Threading-style parallelism to keep pace. The data indicates that users choosing between these two should base the decision on platform features and power characteristics rather than raw benchmark output, since the scores are effectively indistinguishable.

The Opteron's strongest case is its efficiency. It draws 65 watts of TDP compared to the Xeon's 80 watts, while delivering essentially the same Cinebench results. That makes the AMD part the better choice for density-constrained or power-sensitive deployments where every watt matters. The Xeon counters with ECC memory support, which the Opteron lacks, making it the more reliable option for error-checking workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Xeon E5630 uses the Westmere-EP microarchitecture on a 32 nm Intel process, packing 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die. It features 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.53 GHz that boosts to 2.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR3 over a triple-channel bus, and the chip supports ECC memory, a hallmark of server-grade reliability.

The Opteron 3280, by contrast, uses AMD's K10 architecture under the Zurich codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a much higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The cache layout is distinctly different: 384 KB of L1 total, 8 MB of L2 total, and 8 MB of shared L3. Memory is DDR3 over a dual-channel bus, with a stated memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. Notably, the Opteron lacks ECC memory support, which is unusual for a processor in the Opteron family and signals its desktop-oriented market segment.

The transistor counts are nearly identical, 1,200 million for AMD versus 1,170 million for Intel, but the die sizes diverge significantly. The Opteron's 315 mm² die is 32% larger than the Xeon's 239 mm², indicating that AMD's architecture requires more silicon area to achieve similar performance with more cores. The Opteron also integrates graphics on certain motherboards as a chipset feature, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results paint a picture of near-total parity. In Cinebench R15 multicore, both processors score exactly 324. The Xeon is credited with the win due to the tie-breaker, but there is no measurable performance advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon scores 1354 against the Opteron's 1350, a 0.3% difference that falls well within run-to-run variance. The single-core R20 test shows the Xeon at 191 and the Opteron at 190, a 0.5% edge for Intel.

Cinebench R23 multicore follows the same pattern: the Xeon scores 3226, the Opteron 3215, a 0.3% delta. In R23 single-core, the Xeon posts 455 against 453, a 0.4% lead. Across all five tests, the Xeon's average advantage is approximately 0.3%, which is statistically insignificant. The Opteron's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz does not translate into a single-core victory, likely because the K10 architecture's IPC lags behind Westmere.

The 8-core Opteron's inability to outpace the 4-core Xeon in multicore workloads is telling. Despite having double the physical cores, the AMD chip only manages to match the Intel part. This suggests that the Opteron's per-core performance is substantially lower, and that the Xeon's simultaneous multithreading effectively closes the core-count gap. The data shows a processor comparison where architectural efficiency trumps raw core counts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5630 leads in single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 191 against the AMD Opteron 3280's 190, a 0.5% advantage. In R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 455 versus 453, a 0.4% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Opteron 3280's 8-core design beat the Xeon's 4-core design in multicore workloads?

A: No. Despite having twice as many physical cores, the Opteron 3280 matches but does not exceed the Xeon E5630 in multicore tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, both score 324. In R20 multicore, the Xeon leads 1354 to 1350, and in R23 multicore, the Xeon leads 3226 to 3215.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5630 supports ECC memory. The AMD Opteron 3280 does not list ECC memory support in its specifications, which is notable given its server-oriented naming.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD Opteron 3280 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Intel Xeon E5630 has a TDP of 80 watts. The Opteron draws 15 fewer watts while delivering nearly identical benchmark scores.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory channels?

A: No. The Intel Xeon E5630 uses a triple-channel DDR3 memory bus, while the AMD Opteron 3280 uses a dual-channel DDR3 bus. The Opteron has a stated memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Xeon's bandwidth is not specified in the data.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Opteron 3280 has a boost clock of 3.50 GHz, significantly higher than the Intel Xeon E5630's boost clock of 2.80 GHz. Despite this, the Xeon still edges out the Opteron in single-core benchmarks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5630 | AMD Opteron 3280 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.53 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 80 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | AMD Socket AM3+ |

| Architecture | Westmere | K10 |

| Codename | Westmere-EP | Zurich |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,200 million |

| Die Size | 239 mm² | 315 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 29.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2010-03-15 | 2012-03-19 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $229 |

The two processors are built on the same 32 nm process node but diverge sharply in every other physical characteristic. The Opteron uses more transistors (1,200 million versus 1,170 million) and a substantially larger die (315 mm² versus 239 mm²). The cache configurations reflect different design priorities: Intel distributes L1 and L2 per core, while AMD pools larger shared caches. The Opteron's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz contrasts with the Xeon's modest 2.80 GHz, yet the older Intel architecture still maintains a slight performance edge. The Xeon's triple-channel memory bus and ECC support make it the more server-grade option, while the Opteron's lower TDP and desktop socket point to a different intended use case.