CPU Comparison

The AMD Opteron 3380 and Intel Xeon W3580 are both end-of-life server/workstation processors, yet they represent distinctly different design philosophies from their respective eras. The Opteron 3380, built on AMD’s 32nm K10 architecture, offers eight physical cores, while the Xeon W3580, using Intel’s 45nm Nehalem architecture, counters with four cores and Hyper-Threading. Benchmark data shows a consistent and decisive performance advantage for the AMD part across all tested Cinebench workloads, with the Opteron leading by roughly 20% in every scenario. Despite the Xeon’s higher base clock speed, the Opteron’s additional physical cores and more modern process node translate into superior multi-threaded and single-threaded results alike.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 3380 has 8 cores, while the Intel Xeon W3580 has 4 cores. Both processors support 8 threads, with the Opteron using 8 physical cores and the Xeon relying on Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Opteron 3380 in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Opteron scores 3704 compared to the Xeon’s 3092, a 19.8% advantage. Similarly, in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Opteron’s 1555 score is 19.8% higher than the Xeon’s 1298.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W3580 win in any benchmark category?

A: No. According to the head-to-head data, the AMD Opteron 3380 wins all five tested benchmarks, with zero wins for the Intel Xeon W3580. The Xeon trails by roughly 19.7% to 19.9% in every test.

Q: What memory configurations do these processors support?

A: The AMD Opteron 3380 uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the Intel Xeon W3580 uses a triple-channel bus. Both support DDR3 memory, but the Opteron’s memory bandwidth is listed as 29.9 GB/s, while the Xeon’s bandwidth is not specified in the data.

Q: Are both processors compatible with ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon W3580 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Opteron 3380 does not list ECC memory support in its specifications.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD Opteron 3380 has an average benchmark score of 1071, placing it at the 29th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Xeon W3580 has an average score of 1064, also at the 29th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their underlying architectures. The AMD Opteron 3380 is built on the K10 architecture, codenamed Delhi, using a 32 nm process node. It integrates 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Xeon W3580 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, fabricated on a larger 45 nm node. Intel’s chip contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. This process advantage for AMD means the Opteron packs more cores and more cache into a similar power envelope.

Cache layouts also differ significantly. The Opteron 3380 offers 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and an additional 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon W3580 provides smaller per-core caches: 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, totaling 2 MB of L2 across four cores, plus 8 MB of shared L3. The Opteron’s larger aggregate L2 cache (8 MB) is a notable advantage for workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The Opteron uses a dual-channel DDR3 memory bus with a measured bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Xeon W3580 employs a triple-channel DDR3 configuration, though its bandwidth figure is not provided. ECC memory support also differs: the Xeon supports it, while the Opteron does not. Both processors use PCIe Gen 2, but the Opteron’s integrated graphics capability is listed as "on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)," whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed.

The power characteristics are starkly different. The Opteron 3380 has a 65-watt TDP, while the Xeon W3580 draws 130 watts, exactly double. Despite this substantial power disadvantage, the Xeon cannot match the Opteron’s performance, highlighting the efficiency gains from AMD’s 32 nm process versus Intel’s 45 nm node. The Opteron’s base clock is 2.60 GHz with a boost of 3.60 GHz; the Xeon’s base clock is higher at 3.33 GHz, but its boost is identical at 3.60 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably uniform: the AMD Opteron 3380 wins every single test by nearly the same margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 373 against the Xeon’s 311, a 19.9% lead. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Opteron posts 1555 versus 1298 for the Xeon, a 19.8% difference. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the same story: 3704 for the Opteron and 3092 for the Xeon, again a 19.8% advantage.

Single-core performance follows the same trajectory, which is notable given the Xeon’s higher base clock. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 219, beating the Xeon’s 183 by 19.7%. The Cinebench R23 single-core test yields 522 for the Opteron and 436 for the Xeon, a 19.7% margin. This consistency across both single- and multi-threaded workloads suggests that the Opteron’s architectural efficiency and larger caches compensate for its lower base clock, allowing it to outperform the Xeon even when only one core is active.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall dominance. The Opteron’s average score is 1071, while the Xeon’s is 1064, a difference of less than 1%. However, this average is skewed by the fact that the Xeon lacks a Cinebench R15 single-core score in the dataset. The true head-to-head data, which includes five matched tests, shows a clear and consistent 20% performance gap in favor of AMD. The nearest rivals for each processor further contextualize their standing: the Opteron’s closest competitor is the AMD Athlon X4 880K with an identical average score of 1071, while the Xeon’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-9100HL at 1065, just 0.1% behind.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the obvious core count and process node. The AMD Opteron 3380 has a TDP of 65 watts, whereas the Intel Xeon W3580 consumes 130 watts. The Opteron uses AMD Socket AM3+, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366. The Opteron’s release date is 2012-12-03, while the Xeon’s is 2009-08-08, a gap of over three years. The Opteron has a listed launch MSRP of $229, while the Xeon’s launch MSRP is not provided.

Cache configurations differ in structure and size. The Opteron’s L1 cache is 384 KB, its L2 is 8 MB, and its L3 is 8 MB shared. The Xeon’s L1 cache is 64 KB per core (translating to 256 KB total for four cores), its L2 is 256 KB per core (1 MB total), and its L3 is 8 MB shared. The Opteron’s L2 cache is eight times larger in aggregate than the Xeon’s, a significant difference for data-heavy workloads.

Memory support shows the Opteron with a dual-channel bus and a specified bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Xeon has a triple-channel bus with no bandwidth figure listed. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon but absent on the Opteron. The Opteron lists integrated graphics as available on certain motherboards as a chipset feature, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics entry. The Opteron’s part number is OS3380OLW8KHK, and the Xeon’s is SLBET. Both processors have locked multipliers, and both are marked as end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 3380 wins in every benchmark category tested, making it the clear choice for performance-oriented workloads. Its 8 physical cores provide a substantial advantage in multi-threaded rendering tasks, as evidenced by the 19.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 19.9% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The Opteron also wins in single-core performance, with a 19.7% advantage in both Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests. This makes it suitable for applications that are not fully multi-threaded, where its superior per-core efficiency and larger caches outweigh the Xeon’s higher base clock.

The Opteron’s lower TDP of 65 watts versus 130 watts for the Xeon further reinforces its suitability for dense server environments where power and cooling are constrained. Its 32 nm process node and 1,200 million transistors deliver more compute per watt, a critical factor in large-scale deployments. The Opteron’s 8 MB L2 cache is particularly advantageous for workloads with high cache locality, such as database processing or virtual machine hosting, where repeated access to the same data regions benefits from faster on-die storage.

The Intel Xeon W3580, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, retains specific advantages in certain niches. Its triple-channel memory bus could theoretically provide higher memory bandwidth, though no figure is available to confirm this. More concretely, the Xeon supports ECC memory, which is a mandatory requirement for mission-critical servers where data corruption is unacceptable. The Opteron’s lack of ECC support is a significant disqualifier for financial, scientific, or enterprise applications that demand error-correcting memory. Additionally, the Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.33 GHz may benefit legacy software that is sensitive to raw clock speed and does not scale well with additional cores.

In practical terms, the Opteron 3380 is the superior processor for general compute workloads, offering roughly 20% better performance in both single- and multi-threaded tests while consuming half the power. The Xeon W3580’s only clear-cut wins are in ECC memory support and its triple-channel memory architecture, which may appeal to specific reliability-focused deployments. For most server and workstation tasks, the data unequivocally favors the AMD Opteron 3380.