AMD Opteron 4274 HE vs Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5 across all six Cinebench comparisons. The margins are consistent, with the Intel part leading by roughly 3% in nearly every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 510 against the Opteron's 494, a 3.2% advantage. The single-core R15 result is slightly wider: 72 versus 69, a 4.3% lead for Intel.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Xeon posts 2127 multi-core and 300 single-core, while the Opteron manages 2061 and 291 respectively. That translates to a 3.2% multi-core gap and a 3.1% single-core gap. The newest test in the database, Cinebench R23, shows the same story: 5065 versus 4909 multi-core, and 715 versus 693 single-core, both 3.2% in favor of the Intel chip.

The average benchmark score reinforces this. The Xeon E3-1225 v5 sits at 1465, while the Opteron 4274 HE averages 1420. That places the Intel part in the 38th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with the AMD part just behind at the 37th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the Intel Core i3-7350K at 1462 (0.2% behind) and the Intel Core i7-4710HQ at 1473 (0.5% ahead). The Opteron's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-3720QM at 1421, a 0.1% difference.

What stands out here is not the size of the win, but its consistency. The Intel chip does not rely on a single favorable workload. It wins every recorded test by a similar margin. The Opteron's higher core count, 8 cores versus 4, does not translate into a multi-core victory. The Xeon's per-core efficiency overcomes the core deficit in every scenario.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5 wins every benchmark in the database. There is no recorded test where the AMD Opteron 4274 HE comes out ahead. That makes the use-case split straightforward: the Xeon is the better choice for any workload represented by Cinebench, which includes both multi-threaded rendering and single-threaded tasks.

The Opteron's strengths lie outside the measured benchmarks. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, double the Xeon's 4 cores and 4 threads. In theory, that could benefit heavily parallel workloads that scale perfectly with core count. The data does not show such a benefit in Cinebench, but the core count remains a specification difference worth noting. The Opteron also carries a lower TDP of 65 watts against the Xeon's 80 watts, which could matter in dense server deployments where power draw is a primary concern.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Xeon is clearly ahead. Its 3.30 GHz base clock and 3.70 GHz boost clock outpace the Opteron's 2.50 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The single-core benchmark results reflect this: the Xeon leads by 4.3% in R15, 3.1% in R20, and 3.2% in R23. If the workload involves legacy software that relies on one or two threads, the Xeon is the safer pick.

The Opteron's best case is a power-constrained environment with highly threaded workloads that do not appear in this benchmark set. The data cannot confirm that scenario, but the specification sheet leaves that door open.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and different eras. The Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5 uses the Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process node, built by Intel. It packs 1,750 million transistors into a 122 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 4274 HE uses the Bulldozer architecture on a 32 nm process node, manufactured by GlobalFoundries. It contains 1,200 million transistors on a much larger 315 mm² die.

The cache layouts differ significantly. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. The Opteron lists 384 KB of L1 total, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Opteron's larger L2 pool reflects its module-based Bulldozer design, where pairs of cores share resources. The Xeon's per-core cache allocation is more conventional for Intel's architecture.

Memory support also diverges. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The Opteron supports only DDR3, also dual-channel, with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server-class parts.

The Xeon includes integrated graphics in the form of HD Graphics P530. The Opteron has no integrated graphics at all. PCIe support differs as well: the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Opteron is limited to Gen 2. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 1151, while the Opteron uses the AMD Socket C32.

The release dates tell the story of their generational gap. The Opteron launched in November 2011, while the Xeon arrived in October 2015. Both are now end-of-life products, but the Xeon benefits from four additional years of architectural refinement.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field in the database. The Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Opteron has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.30 GHz for the Xeon and 2.50 GHz for the Opteron. Boost clocks are 3.70 GHz and 3.50 GHz respectively.

TDP is one of the few areas where the Opteron has an advantage: 65 watts versus 80 watts for the Xeon. The process node favors Intel at 14 nm versus 32 nm. Transistor count is higher on the Xeon at 1,750 million, but the die is much smaller at 122 mm² compared to 315 mm².

Cache configurations are not directly comparable. The Xeon uses per-core L1 and L2, while the Opteron lists total L1 and L2 figures. Both have 8 MB of shared L3. Memory support shows the Xeon accepting both DDR3 and DDR4, while the Opteron is DDR3-only. Memory bandwidth is 34.1 GB/s for the Xeon and 25.6 GB/s for the Opteron.

PCIe generation differs: Gen 3 for the Xeon, Gen 2 for the Opteron. The Xeon has integrated graphics, the Opteron does not. The launch MSRP for the Xeon was $224, while the Opteron launched at $377. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 510 versus 494 in R15, 2127 versus 2061 in R20, and 5065 versus 4909 in R23. Each win is a 3.2% margin.

Q: Does the Opteron's 8-core design beat the Xeon's 4 cores?

A: No. Despite having double the cores, the Opteron 4274 HE loses every multi-core benchmark. The Xeon's per-core efficiency and higher clock speeds overcome the core count disadvantage.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Xeon leads in all single-core tests. The margins are 4.3% in R15 (72 versus 69), 3.1% in R20 (300 versus 291), and 3.2% in R23 (715 versus 693).

Q: Which processor has lower power consumption?

A: The AMD Opteron 4274 HE has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5 has a TDP of 80 watts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon and the Opteron support ECC memory. The Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4, while the Opteron supports only DDR3.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5 has integrated graphics, specifically HD Graphics P530. The AMD Opteron 4274 HE has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5 is the better processor in every measured category. It wins all six Cinebench benchmarks, has a higher average score of 1465 against 1420, and sits at a higher percentile ranking. The margins are not dramatic, but they are consistent across every test.

The Opteron 4274 HE does have legitimate advantages on paper. Its 8 cores and 8 threads double the Xeon's thread count. Its 65 watt TDP is lower than the Xeon's 80 watts. For a server environment where power efficiency is the top priority and workloads are known to scale across many cores, the Opteron could still be a rational choice. The database does not contain benchmarks that demonstrate this advantage, but the specifications support the possibility.

For anyone choosing between these two for general server or workstation use, the Xeon E3-1225 v5 is the safer pick. It wins every recorded test, offers newer architecture, supports faster memory, includes integrated graphics, and carries a lower launch MSRP. The Opteron's only clear wins are core count and TDP, neither of which translates to a benchmark victory in the recorded data.