AMD Opteron 4376 HE vs Intel Xeon W3580 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD Opteron 4376 HE wins every single head-to-head comparison, with the margin staying almost perfectly uniform across all five tests. The Intel Xeon W3580 never takes a single win, and the deltas cluster tightly between -15.7% and -15.8%. That consistency is itself meaningful — it suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

Starting with multi-threaded workloads, the Opteron 4376 HE scores 369 in Cinebench R15 multi-core against the Xeon W3580's 311, a gap of 15.7%. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Opteron posts 1541 versus 1298, again 15.8% ahead. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the same story: 3670 for AMD versus 3092 for Intel, a 15.7% advantage. In rendering tasks that scale with core count, the Opteron's eight physical cores give it a decisive edge over the Xeon's four cores with Hyper-Threading.

The single-core results are more surprising. The Xeon W3580 has a much higher base clock of 3.33 GHz compared to the Opteron's 2.60 GHz, and both boost to 3.60 GHz. Yet the Opteron still wins single-core tests by nearly the same margin. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 217 versus 183 for the Xeon, a 15.7% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 518 versus 436, a 15.8% gap. This suggests the Piledriver architecture's per-clock efficiency in these Cinebench versions outpaces Nehalem's, despite the clock disadvantage at stock settings.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The Xeon W3580 averages 1064 across all its benchmarks, while the Opteron 4376 HE averages 1061. That 0.3% difference places the Xeon just ahead in the aggregate, and both sit at the 29th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest-rival data reinforces how close these parts are overall: the Xeon's closest rival is the Intel Core i3-9100HL at a 0.1% delta, and the Opteron's closest is the Intel Core i3-4360 at a 0.0% delta. So while the Opteron dominates the Cinebench suite, the broader benchmark average shows them neck-and-neck.

The wins tally is unambiguous: 5 wins for the AMD Opteron 4376 HE, 0 for the Intel Xeon W3580. Every head-to-head test, regardless of single-core or multi-core nature, lands in the Opteron's favor. The margins are not trivial — a consistent 15.7% to 15.8% is a substantial performance gap in any workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon W3580 is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, fabricated on Intel's 45 nm process node. It houses 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 4376 HE uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Seoul, on a 32 nm process, with 1,200 million transistors across a 315 mm² die. The process node difference explains part of the transistor density gap — AMD packs roughly 64% more transistors into a die that is only about 20% larger.

Core counts differ substantially. The Xeon W3580 provides 4 cores with 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Opteron 4376 HE delivers 8 physical cores with 8 threads (no SMT). This 2x core advantage is the primary reason for the Opteron's multi-core wins. The cache hierarchies also reflect different approaches. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 8 MB L3. The Opteron lists 384 KB of L1 total, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Opteron's larger total L2 (8 MB versus 1 MB when scaled across four cores) gives it more fast cache for data reuse.

Memory support shows both parts using DDR3, but the Xeon W3580 offers triple-channel memory, while the AMD part's memory bus configuration is not specified in the data. ECC memory support differs: the Xeon supports ECC, while the Opteron 4376 HE does not list ECC support. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Opteron's PCIe generation is not specified. The Xeon has no integrated graphics; the Opteron's integrated graphics field is also null.

The Xeon W3580 was released in August 2009, while the Opteron 4376 HE launched in December 2012 — a gap of over three years. The Intel part is explicitly marked as end-of-life, while the Opteron's production status is not provided. Socket compatibility is entirely different: Intel Socket 1366 for the Xeon versus AMD Socket C32 for the Opteron. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon's part number is SLBET; the Opteron's is OS4376OFU8KHK.

Power characteristics are not directly comparable in the data — the Xeon W3580 has a TDP of 130, while the Opteron 4376 HE has a TDP of 65. That is notable: the Opteron delivers more cores and higher benchmark scores while drawing half the thermal envelope, a significant efficiency advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The AMD Opteron 4376 HE wins all multi-core tests. It scores 369 versus 311 in R15, 1541 versus 1298 in R20, and 3670 versus 3092 in R23, each time leading by roughly 15.7%.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W3580 win any benchmark in the head-to-head data?

A: No. The Xeon W3580 wins 0 of the 5 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Opteron 4376 HE wins all 5.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon W3580 has an average benchmark score of 1064, while the Opteron 4376 HE averages 1061. The difference is 0.3%, with the Xeon slightly ahead in this aggregate metric.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon W3580 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD Opteron 4376 HE has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon W3580 has a TDP of 130, while the AMD Opteron 4376 HE has a TDP of 65. The Opteron uses half the thermal envelope.

Q: When was each processor released?

A: The Intel Xeon W3580 was released on August 8, 2009. The AMD Opteron 4376 HE was released on December 3, 2012.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Xeon W3580 and the AMD Opteron 4376 HE:

• Cores: 4 (Intel) versus 8 (AMD)
• Threads: 8 (Intel) versus 8 (AMD)
• Base clock: 3.33 GHz (Intel) versus 2.60 GHz (AMD)
• Boost clock: 3.60 GHz (both) — no difference
• TDP: 130 (Intel) versus 65 (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1366 versus AMD Socket C32
• Architecture: Nehalem versus Piledriver
• Codename: Bloomfield versus Seoul
• Process node: 45 nm versus 32 nm
• Transistors: 731 million versus 1,200 million
• Die size: 263 mm² versus 315 mm²
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 384 KB total
• L2 cache: 256 KB per core versus 8 MB total
• Memory bus: Triple-channel versus not specified
• ECC memory: True versus false
• PCIe: Gen 2 versus not specified
• Release date: 2009-08-08 versus 2012-12-03
• Part number: SLBET versus OS4376OFU8KHK
• Production status: End-of-life versus not specified

Fields that are the same: both support DDR3 memory, both have 8 MB of shared L3 cache, both are in the Server/Workstation market segment, both have locked multipliers, and neither has integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the AMD Opteron 4376 HE takes every head-to-head benchmark by a consistent margin of about 15.7% to 15.8%. If raw Cinebench scores are the deciding factor, the Opteron is the only choice. It achieves this with twice the physical cores (8 versus 4) and half the TDP (65 versus 130), making it the superior part for multi-threaded workloads in the measured tests.

However, the average benchmark score tells a more nuanced story. The Intel Xeon W3580 edges out the Opteron 1064 to 1061 in aggregate, a 0.3% difference. This suggests that outside the Cinebench suite, the Xeon holds its own or even leads slightly. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support, triple-channel memory, and a higher base clock of 3.33 GHz versus 2.60 GHz. For workloads that favor those features — such as memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks or environments requiring ECC — the Xeon W3580 remains relevant despite losing the Cinebench comparisons.

The 29th percentile ranking for both parts indicates they sit at the same overall performance tier among all CPUs. Neither is a standout in the broader market; they are closely matched contemporaries with different strengths. The Opteron wins on core count, efficiency, and the specific Cinebench workloads; the Xeon wins on aggregate average and ECC support.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 4376 HE wins in every measured head-to-head benchmark, covering both multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests. Its 8 physical cores give it a structural advantage in rendering and heavily threaded tasks, as evidenced by the R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores all landing 15.7% ahead of the Xeon. Its lower TDP of 65 makes it the more efficient choice for dense server deployments where thermal headroom is a constraint. The consistent 15.7-15.8% win margin across single-core tests also indicates that Piledriver's efficiency in Cinebench outperforms Nehalem, even when clock speeds favor Intel.

The Intel Xeon W3580 wins in the aggregate average benchmark score, posting 1064 versus 1061 for the Opteron. That 0.3% edge, while small, suggests the Xeon performs better in workloads not covered by the Cinebench suite. Its ECC memory support and triple-channel DDR3 configuration make it the stronger candidate for error-sensitive computing environments or memory-bandwidth-bound applications. The higher base clock of 3.33 GHz could benefit lightly threaded tasks that do not boost well, though the data does not include such tests. For users with an existing Intel Socket 1366 platform, the Xeon is the drop-in option, while the Opteron requires an AMD Socket C32 board.