AMD Opteron 4334 vs Intel Xeon E5640 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Opteron 4334 wins all five recorded head-to-head benchmark tests against the Intel Xeon E5640. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Opteron leads by 1.8%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Opteron 4334 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5640 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron offers more physical cores, but the Xeon provides simultaneous multithreading, which gives it two additional logical threads.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Opteron 4334 records an average benchmark score of 1155, while the Intel Xeon E5640 records 1137. The Opteron sits at the 33rd percentile of all CPUs, and the Xeon sits at the 32nd percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD Opteron 4334 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5640 has a base clock of 2.67 GHz. The Opteron also has a higher boost clock at 3.50 GHz versus 2.93 GHz for the Xeon.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon E5640 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Opteron 4334 does not have ECC memory support listed in the database.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: Both processors are built on a 32 nm process. The AMD Opteron 4334 uses AMD's Piledriver architecture with the codename Seoul, and the Intel Xeon E5640 uses the Westmere architecture with the codename Westmere-EP.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Opteron 4334 across all five Cinebench tests. The Opteron wins multicore workloads in Cinebench R15 (338 vs 332), R20 (1409 vs 1387), and R23 (3356 vs 3303). It also wins both single-core tests, in R20 (198 vs 195) and R23 (473 vs 466). Every delta is narrow, ranging from 1.5% to 1.8%, so the Opteron's advantage is consistent but not dramatic.

The Intel Xeon E5640 does not win any recorded benchmark test, but its strengths appear in the specification data. It supports ECC memory, a feature that the Opteron lacks entirely. The Xeon also has a triple-channel memory bus, which is not listed for the Opteron, and it carries PCIe Gen 2 support. For workloads that depend on memory reliability or platform features rather than raw Cinebench scores, the Xeon's feature set may hold more appeal. The Xeon also draws less power, with an 80 W TDP versus 95 W for the Opteron, which could matter in dense server deployments.

The Opteron's advantage in Cinebench is likely tied to its higher clock speeds and additional physical core. With a base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost up to 3.50 GHz, it outpaces the Xeon's 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost by a meaningful margin. The Opteron's 6 physical cores also give it an edge in workloads that scale with core count, even though the Xeon's 8 threads partially compensate.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Opteron 4334 uses the Piledriver architecture, built on a 32 nm process, with the codename Seoul. It belongs to the Opteron 4000 series and uses the AMD Socket C32. The chip integrates 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. Its cache layout includes 288 KB of L1 cache, 6 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Xeon E5640 uses the Westmere architecture, also built on a 32 nm process, with the codename Westmere-EP. It uses the Intel Socket 1366 and is manufactured by Intel's own foundry. The die contains 1,170 million transistors across 239 mm². Its cache structure differs notably: L1 cache is 64 KB per core, L2 cache is 256 KB per core, and L3 cache is 12 MB shared.

The architectural split is clear. AMD pairs a smaller L3 cache (8 MB shared) with more physical cores and higher clocks. Intel pairs a larger L3 cache (12 MB shared) with fewer physical cores but more threads per core. The Intel chip also has a triple-channel memory bus, which the database does not list for the Opteron. Both chips support DDR3 memory, but only the Xeon is listed with ECC memory support.

The Xeon's production status is end-of-life, while no production status is recorded for the Opteron. The Opteron's release date is December 2012, while the Xeon's release date is March 2010, so the Opteron is the newer design by roughly two and a half years.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Opteron has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.10 GHz for the Opteron versus 2.67 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are 3.50 GHz versus 2.93 GHz. TDP also differs, with the Opteron rated at 95 W and the Xeon at 80 W.

Sockets are incompatible: the Opteron uses AMD Socket C32, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366. The Opteron's cache totals 288 KB L1, 6 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. The Xeon uses 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The transistor counts are close, 1,200 million for the Opteron and 1,170 million for the Xeon, but the die sizes are not: 315 mm² versus 239 mm².

Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Xeon adds a triple-channel memory bus and ECC support, while the Opteron lists neither. The Xeon also records PCIe Gen 2 support, while the Opteron lists no PCIe generation. The Xeon's market segment is server/workstation, and the Opteron's is also server/workstation. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has integrated graphics. The Opteron's part number is OS4334WLU6KHK, and the Xeon's is SLBVC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Opteron 4334 wins all five recorded head-to-head comparisons. The margins are small but uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Opteron scores 338 against the Xeon's 332, a 1.8% lead. This is the largest delta in the set. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Opteron scores 1409 against 1387, a 1.6% lead. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Opteron scores 3356 against 3303, another 1.6% lead.

The single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 198 against 195, a 1.5% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Opteron scores 473 against 466, again a 1.5% lead. The consistency of these margins suggests that the Opteron's higher clock speeds provide a steady advantage across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Looking at the Opteron's nearest rivals in the database, its average score of 1155 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312, which averages 1156 with a delta of -0.1%. It also sits close to the Intel Core i3-8145UE at 1154, the Intel Core i5-4430 at 1149, and the AMD Opteron 6212 at 1162. The Xeon's average of 1137 places it near the Intel Core i5-2550K at 1136, the Intel Core i5-3570T at 1136, the AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE at 1138, and the Intel Core i3-N300 at 1135. Neither chip is far from its nearest rivals, which reinforces the narrow overall performance gap.

The Opteron's wins are not blowouts, but they are also not isolated. The chip wins every test by a similar margin, which points to a broad performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Xeon never gets within a single percentage point in any test, so the Opteron's lead appears structural, likely tied to clock speed and core count.

The Verdict

The AMD Opteron 4334 is the pick for anyone optimizing Cinebench rendering performance. It wins all five recorded benchmarks by margins between 1.5% and 1.8%, and it holds a higher average benchmark score of 1155 against the Xeon's 1137. The additional physical core (6 cores against the Xeon's 4 cores, 6 threads against 8 threads) likely explains part of the multicore advantage, while its higher base and boost clocks support the single-core wins. The data is clear on who leads in raw throughput.

The Intel Xeon E5640 is the pick for anyone who needs server-specific features that the Opteron lacks. ECC memory support is the standout difference, and the Xeon is the only one of the two with that capability. It also lists a triple-channel memory bus and PCIe Gen 2, and it draws less power at 80 W versus 95 W. If the workload depends on memory reliability or platform compatibility rather than raw Cinebench scores, the Xeon's feature set makes it the more server-appropriate choice.

The Xeon also has an earlier release date, March 2010, and is marked end-of-life, while the Opteron, released December 2012, has no recorded production status. The Opteron has the newer architecture design, but the Xeon's ECC support and lower TDP give it a place in environments where those attributes matter more than a 1.5% to 1.8% benchmark edge.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the Xeon wins a benchmark. Its only advantages are in features and power draw. For pure performance, the Opteron is the decisive winner. For reliability-oriented server deployments, the Xeon's ECC memory support is a legitimate reason to choose it, even if it gives up ground in every Cinebench test.