CPU Comparison

The AMD Opteron 4386 and Intel Xeon W3550 are two server/workstation processors from different eras, yet their benchmark results place them in an unusually tight competition. The data shows that the AMD part, a 2012 release built on 32 nm Piledriver architecture, and the Intel part, a 2009 release built on 45 nm Nehalem architecture, deliver nearly identical performance across all tested Cinebench workloads. The Opteron 4386 holds a marginal edge in every multicore test, while single-core scores are exactly tied, making this a comparison defined by fractions of a percent rather than decisive victories.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals an extraordinarily close contest, with the AMD Opteron 4386 winning all five benchmark comparisons by margins ranging from 0.0% to 0.4%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Opteron scores 280 against the Xeon’s 279, a 0.4% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Opteron posts 1168 versus the Xeon’s 1166, a 0.2% lead. The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows a similar story: the Opteron achieves 2782, while the Xeon manages 2778, a 0.1% difference.

Single-core performance is a perfect tie in both available tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both processors score exactly 164, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, both score exactly 392. These identical results suggest that per-thread performance is effectively indistinguishable between the two architectures in these workloads, despite the Opteron’s higher base clock of 3.10 GHz versus the Xeon’s 3.07 GHz, and boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.33 GHz.

The aggregate benchmark scores reinforce this parity. The AMD Opteron 4386 has an average benchmark score of 957, while the Intel Xeon W3550 sits at 956. Both processors occupy the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same performance tier. The nearest rivals list for the Opteron includes the Xeon W3550 itself, with a deltaPct of 0.1, meaning the Opteron is just 0.1% ahead on average. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-950 at a deltaPct of -0.1%, indicating the Xeon trails that chip by a hair.

What is striking is the consistency of the AMD’s wins. While the deltas are tiny, never exceeding half a percent, the Opteron wins every single comparison. The Xeon W3550, despite having half the physical cores (4 versus 8), compensates with Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads, matching the Opteron’s thread count. This explains why the multicore results are so close: both processors present 8 threads to the operating system, and their per-thread efficiency in Cinebench is nearly identical.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 has an average benchmark score of 957, while the Intel Xeon W3550 scores 956. This places the Opteron 0.1% ahead in aggregate performance.

Q: Are the single-core performances of these two CPUs different?

A: No. In both Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests, the AMD Opteron 4386 and Intel Xeon W3550 score exactly the same: 164 in R20 and 392 in R23.

Q: How do the multicore scores compare in Cinebench R15?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 scores 280, beating the Intel Xeon W3550’s 279 by 0.4%. This is the largest margin of victory in any benchmark between these two processors.

Q: What is the thread count for each processor?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Xeon W3550 has 4 cores and 8 threads, using Hyper-Threading to match the Opteron’s thread count.

Q: Which processor occupies a higher percentile among all CPUs?

A: Both processors are tied at the 26th percentile of all CPUs, according to the database. Neither has a statistical edge in overall standing.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W3550 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD Opteron 4386 winning all 5 benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Xeon W3550 winning 0.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, verdict: the AMD Opteron 4386 is the better-performing processor in this pairing. It wins every benchmark comparison, however slightly, and holds a 1-point lead in average benchmark score (957 vs. 956). The Opteron’s wins are consistent across all Cinebench versions, from R15 to R23, covering both multicore and single-core tests. Even in the two tests where scores are tied, the Opteron is still declared the winner with a deltaPct of 0, meaning it does not lose any ground.

However, the practical significance of this victory is minimal. A 0.4% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore translates to a single point on the score scale. For real-world applications, this level of difference is well within run-to-run variance and would be imperceptible to a user. The 26th percentile ranking for both CPUs reinforces that they sit in the same performance class. A buyer choosing between these two on a used market or in a legacy system should base the decision on platform considerations, not raw benchmark output, because the benchmark data shows no meaningful winner.

The Intel Xeon W3550, despite being older and having fewer physical cores, matches the Opteron so closely that it cannot be considered a poor alternative. Its 4 cores and 8 threads deliver nearly identical Cinebench results to the Opteron’s 8 cores and 8 threads. Still, the data is unambiguous: the Opteron 4386 wins all 5 head-to-head comparisons, and that is the factual outcome.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their core configurations and physical characteristics. The AMD Opteron 4386 features 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon W3550 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are close, with the Opteron at 3.10 GHz and the Xeon at 3.07 GHz, but the boost clocks diverge more significantly: the Opteron boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the Xeon reaches only 3.33 GHz.

Thermal design power (TDP) differs noticeably, with the Opteron rated at 95 watts and the Xeon at 130 watts. The Opteron uses the AMD Socket C32, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366. The Opteron is built on a 32 nm process node, whereas the Xeon uses a 45 nm node. Transistor counts and die sizes also differ: the Opteron contains 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die, while the Xeon contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Opteron has 384 KB of L1 cache and 8 MB of L2 cache, with an additional 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon specifies its cache per core: 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon supports triple-channel memory and lists PCIe Gen 2 support, while the Opteron does not specify a memory bus or PCIe generation in the data. Both support DDR3 memory, but the Xeon explicitly supports ECC memory, while the Opteron’s ECC status is listed as false.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these processors is significant. The AMD Opteron 4386 uses the Piledriver architecture, with the codename Seoul, part of the Opteron 4000 series. It is built on a 32 nm process by AMD. The Intel Xeon W3550 uses the Nehalem architecture, with the codename Bloomfield, built on a 45 nm process by Intel. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the Opteron’s production status is not specified.

The core designs reflect different philosophies. The Opteron’s 8 cores are physical, with no simultaneous multithreading, yielding 8 threads. The Xeon’s 4 cores use Hyper-Threading to double the thread count to 8. This means the Opteron relies on raw core count, while the Xeon relies on per-core efficiency and its higher transistor density per core, despite the larger process node. The Xeon’s cache is expressed per core (64 KB L1, 256 KB L2), indicating a design where each core has dedicated cache, while the Opteron’s cache is listed as aggregate amounts (384 KB L1, 8 MB L2), suggesting a different allocation strategy.

The Xeon’s memory support includes triple-channel bus, which is a notable feature absent from the Opteron’s specification list. The Xeon also explicitly supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server workloads, while the Opteron does not. The release dates differ by over three years: the Opteron launched on 2012-12-03, while the Xeon launched on 2009-08-08. The Xeon’s part number is SLBEY, and the Opteron’s is OS4386WLU8KHK.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark data, the AMD Opteron 4386 wins in every measured category. It leads in Cinebench R15 multicore (280 vs. 279), Cinebench R20 multicore (1168 vs. 1166), and Cinebench R23 multicore (2782 vs. 2778). In single-core tests, the two are tied, but the Opteron is credited with the win in both R20 and R23 single-core due to the head-to-head designation. The Opteron also holds a higher average benchmark score (957 vs. 956).

However, the use-case split is more nuanced than the raw win count. The Intel Xeon W3550’s advantage lies in its feature set, not its benchmark scores. The Xeon supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in server environments, and it offers triple-channel memory support, which can provide higher memory bandwidth in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon also lists PCIe Gen 2 support, which the Opteron does not. For a workstation requiring error-correcting memory, the Xeon would be the functional choice despite its benchmark deficit.

The AMD Opteron 4386 wins on efficiency and core count. Its 95-watt TDP is significantly lower than the Xeon’s 130-watt TDP, meaning it delivers comparable performance with less heat output. Its 8 physical cores provide more raw parallel processing capability, which may benefit workloads that scale with core count beyond what the benchmarks show. The Opteron also has a higher boost clock (3.80 GHz vs. 3.33 GHz), which can help in bursty single-threaded tasks, even though the Cinebench results show a tie.

In summary, the Opteron 4386 is the benchmark winner across the board, but the Xeon W3550 wins on platform features like ECC memory and triple-channel support. The data shows a processor that is marginally faster in every test, and another that offers server-grade features the AMD part lacks. For a pure performance comparison, the Opteron takes all 5 wins; for a server deployment requiring ECC, the Xeon’s feature set is the differentiator.