AMD Opteron 3350 HE vs Intel Xeon X5482 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 operates at 3.20 GHz, while the AMD Opteron 3350 HE has a base clock of 2.80 GHz. However, the Opteron does feature a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core rendering performance?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 edges out the AMD Opteron 3350 HE in every recorded multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2341 against the Opteron's 2294, a 2% advantage. The gap is slightly larger in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon leads by 2.1% (983 vs. 963).

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 wins all single-core benchmarks as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 330 versus 323 for the Opteron, a 2.2% lead. The same 2.2% margin appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, with scores of 138 and 135 respectively.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Opteron 3350 HE is built on a 32 nm process, while the Intel Xeon X5482 uses a 45 nm node. The Opteron also packs more transistors: 1,200 million compared to 820 million for the Xeon.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon X5482 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Opteron 3350 HE does not. Both chips use dual-channel memory buses, but the Opteron supports only DDR3, whereas the Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 has an average benchmark score of 805, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Opteron 3350 HE averages 789, sitting in the 21st percentile. The Xeon is 2% ahead on average, and its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U, matches its 805 score exactly.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon X5482 and AMD Opteron 3350 HE represent two fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective eras. The Xeon, part of the Harpertown generation, uses Intel's Core 2 architecture on a 45 nm process, produced by Intel's own foundry. It features a dual-die design with each die measuring 107 mm², combining for 820 million transistors. The Opteron, from AMD's Delhi generation, relies on the K10 architecture on a 32 nm process, manufactured by GlobalFoundries. Its monolithic die is substantially larger at 315 mm² and contains 1,200 million transistors.

Cache organization differs markedly. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache present. The Opteron offers 192 KB of L1 cache total, 4 MB of L2 cache, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. This means the AMD part has a larger aggregate cache pool, but the Intel design's per-core L2 allocation may benefit certain workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The Xeon supports both DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, while the Opteron is limited to DDR3. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Opteron has a specified memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, a figure not recorded for the Xeon. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the Opteron, a notable distinction for server reliability.

The Opteron includes an integrated graphics option as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Both processors use PCIe Gen 2. The Xeon's launch MSRP was $1279, while the Opteron's was $125. The Xeon was released in November 2007, the Opteron in December 2012, making the AMD part five years newer in design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, if narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon X5482 across all five Cinebench tests. The margins are small, ranging from 1.7% to 2.2%, but they appear in every workload category.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 235 against the Opteron's 231, a 1.7% advantage. This is the smallest margin recorded. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon extends its lead to 2.1%, scoring 983 versus 963. The R23 multi-core test shows a 2% gap, with scores of 2341 and 2294 respectively.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 138 while the Opteron manages 135, a 2.2% difference. The R23 single-core test repeats that exact 2.2% margin, with scores of 330 and 323. Across all tests, the Xeon wins 5 benchmarks and the Opteron wins none.

These results suggest the Xeon's higher base clock of 3.20 GHz provides a slight edge over the Opteron's 2.80 GHz base, even though the Opteron can boost to 3.80 GHz. The Xeon's older Core 2 architecture appears to deliver comparable or slightly better per-clock performance than AMD's K10 design, despite the Opteron's newer 32 nm process and larger transistor count.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Xeon averages 805 points, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs. The Opteron averages 789, in the 21st percentile. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U (matching 805), the AMD Athlon X4 850 (806, 0.1% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-3320M (803, 0.3% behind). The Opteron's nearest rivals are the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (789, 0.1% behind) and the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (790, 0.1% ahead).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category:

• Base clock: Intel Xeon X5482 runs at 3.20 GHz; AMD Opteron 3350 HE runs at 2.80 GHz.
• Boost clock: The Xeon has none; the Opteron boosts to 3.80 GHz.
• TDP: The Xeon draws 150 W; the Opteron draws just 45 W.
• Socket: The Xeon uses Intel Socket 771; the Opteron uses AMD Socket AM3+.
• Architecture: The Xeon uses Core 2; the Opteron uses K10.
• Process node: The Xeon is 45 nm; the Opteron is 32 nm.
• Transistors: The Xeon has 820 million; the Opteron has 1,200 million.
• Die size: The Xeon uses 2x 107 mm²; the Opteron uses a single 315 mm² die.
• L1 cache: The Xeon has 64 KB per core; the Opteron has 192 KB total.
• L2 cache: The Xeon has 6 MB per die; the Opteron has 4 MB total.
• L3 cache: The Xeon has none; the Opteron has 8 MB shared.
• Memory support: The Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3; the Opteron supports only DDR3.
• Memory bandwidth: The Xeon has no recorded figure; the Opteron has 29.9 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Supported on the Xeon; not supported on the Opteron.
• Integrated graphics: None on the Xeon; chipset-dependent on the Opteron.
• Release date: The Xeon launched in November 2007; the Opteron in December 2012.
• Cores and threads: Both have 4 cores and 4 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon X5482 wins every benchmark in the recorded data, making it the clear choice for raw processing performance in both single-core and multi-core workloads. Its consistent 2% to 2.2% lead across all Cinebench tests indicates that the higher base clock and Intel's Core 2 architecture deliver superior results in rendering and CPU-bound tasks. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, making it suitable for servers requiring error correction.

The AMD Opteron 3350 HE, despite losing all benchmarks, has its own strengths. Its 45 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon's 150 W, making it far more power-efficient for dense server deployments where heat and electricity costs matter. The Opteron's boost clock of 3.80 GHz provides headroom for burst workloads, even if sustained performance trails the Xeon. Its larger cache pool, including 8 MB of shared L3 cache, may benefit workloads with high cache reuse. The Opteron also supports integrated graphics as a chipset feature, which could simplify systems that do not require a discrete GPU.

The Opteron's newer 32 nm process and higher transistor count suggest better architectural efficiency per watt, but the benchmark data shows that efficiency does not translate into higher scores. For applications where absolute performance is the priority, the Xeon is the winner. For power-constrained environments where moderate performance is acceptable, the Opteron's 45 W TDP and boost capability make it an attractive alternative. The Xeon's 150 W TDP is a significant drawback for modern data centers, but its performance lead is measurable across every test recorded.