AMD Opteron 4280 vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data paints a remarkably close picture between these two server processors. Across all six benchmark comparisons, the AMD Opteron 4280 wins every single test, but the margins are extremely narrow. The largest advantage is 0.8% in multi-core tests, while single-core tests show a 0.0% to 0.7% lead. The AMD Opteron 4280 holds a slight edge in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores, with deltas of 0.8%, 0.8%, and 0.8% respectively. In single-core tests, the AMD chip leads by 0.0%, 0.4%, and 0.7%. The average benchmark score for the AMD Opteron 4280 is 1107, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 sits at 1098. Both processors land at the 31st percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier.

Given this data, the choice depends on factors beyond raw compute. The AMD Opteron 4280 offers eight cores versus the Intel's four, yet the benchmark results show the AMD chip barely ahead. This indicates the Intel architecture delivers more performance per core. For workloads that use many threads, the AMD Opteron 4280 is nominally faster, but the difference is within measurement noise. For single-threaded tasks, the two are essentially tied. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 brings newer memory technology and more memory bandwidth, while the AMD part offers more cores and a lower thermal design power. The verdict: if raw Cinebench scores are the sole criterion, the AMD Opteron 4280 wins all six tests, but the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is a legitimate alternative for workloads that benefit from its memory subsystem.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Opteron 4280 uses the Bulldozer architecture, codenamed Valencia, built on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process by Intel. It contains 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The Intel chip has more than twice the transistor count and a slightly larger die, despite having half the cores.

Core counts differ significantly. The AMD Opteron 4280 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Both run at a base clock of 2.80 GHz. The AMD part has a boost clock of 3.50 GHz, while the Intel part has no boost clock listed in the database. Cache configurations also differ: the AMD chip has 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The Intel L3 cache is larger overall, and its per-core L2 is more generous.

Memory support separates these two clearly. The AMD Opteron 4280 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel memory bus, providing 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus, providing 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. That is more than double the memory bandwidth on the Intel side. Both support ECC memory. PCIe generations differ: the AMD chip uses Gen 2, while the Intel chip uses Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket C32 for the Opteron, Intel Socket 2011-3 for the Xeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Opteron 4280, but the margins are tiny. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD chip scores 385 against the Intel's 382, a 0.8% lead. In R15 single-core, both score 54, with a 0.0% delta. The R20 multi-core test shows 1607 versus 1595, again a 0.8% lead for AMD. The R20 single-core test has 226 versus 225, a 0.4% lead. In R23 multi-core, the AMD chip scores 3828 versus 3798, a 0.8% lead. Finally, in R23 single-core, the AMD chip scores 540 versus 536, a 0.7% lead.

The pattern is consistent: the AMD Opteron 4280 leads in every multi-core test by the same 0.8% margin, and in single-core tests the lead varies from zero to 0.7%. These are not decisive victories. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 never wins a single benchmark in this head-to-head comparison, but it also never loses by more than 0.8%. The data suggests that with eight cores versus four, the AMD chip is only marginally faster, which points to the Intel architecture being more efficient per core. The average benchmark scores reflect the same story: 1107 for AMD versus 1098 for Intel, a difference of less than 1%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

The AMD Opteron 4280 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core Cinebench R23?

The AMD Opteron 4280 scores 3828, and the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 scores 3798, giving the AMD chip a 0.8% lead.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

Yes, both the AMD Opteron 4280 and the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types do they use?

The AMD Opteron 4280 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

The AMD Opteron 4280 has an average benchmark score of 1107, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has an average score of 1098.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each?

The AMD Opteron 4280 has a TDP of 95 watts, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has a TDP of 140 watts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 4280 wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks, so it is the clear choice for anyone using Cinebench-style rendering workloads. Its 0.8% lead in multi-core tests across R15, R20, and R23 suggests it handles multi-threaded rendering slightly better. The single-core wins, while smaller, still favor the AMD chip in R20 and R23. For workloads that are heavily threaded and cache-sensitive, the AMD Opteron 4280's 8 MB of L2 and 8 MB of shared L3 provide a slight edge. The lower TDP of 95 watts versus 140 watts also makes it the more power-efficient option in the database's recorded specifications.

The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins in areas not covered by benchmark scores. Its memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s, more than double the AMD part. This matters for memory-bound workloads, even though the Cinebench data does not reflect it. The Intel chip also has a larger shared L3 cache at 10 MB versus 8 MB. Its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes provide more modern I/O connectivity. For workloads that stress memory throughput, such as large database operations or data analytics, the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has the architectural advantage. However, the recorded benchmark data shows no test where the Intel chip wins, so any recommendation for Intel must be based on memory subsystem features rather than measured compute performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD Opteron 4280 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Both have a base clock of 2.80 GHz, but the AMD chip adds a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The Intel chip has no listed boost clock. Thermal design power differs: 95 watts for AMD versus 140 watts for Intel.

The manufacturing details diverge sharply. The AMD chip uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel chip uses a 22 nm process from Intel with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. Cache structures are different as well: the AMD chip has 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3, while the Intel chip has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3.

Memory support is a major split. The AMD Opteron 4280 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 supports DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities differ: Gen 2 for AMD versus Gen 3 with 40 lanes for Intel. The sockets are different (AMD Socket C32 versus Intel Socket 2011-3). The launch MSRP for the AMD Opteron 4280 is $255, while the Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have unlocked multipliers set to false, and both are end-of-life. The release dates differ: 2011 for the AMD chip and 2014 for the Intel chip.