CPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the AMD Opteron 4386 and the Intel Xeon W3570 is unusually lopsided. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD Opteron 4386 claims every single win, with the Intel Xeon W3570 taking zero victories. That said, the margins are extraordinarily thin, which makes the "wins" more symbolic than practical.

In multi-core workloads, the Opteron 4386 edges ahead consistently. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the AMD part scoring 280 versus the Intel's 279, a 0.4% delta. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Opteron scores 1168 against 1165, a 0.3% advantage. The R23 multi-core result follows the same pattern: 2782 for AMD versus 2776 for Intel, a 0.2% gap. These are not transformative differences, they are statistical noise-level margins, but they do point to a slight consistency in favor of the eight-core AMD design.

Single-core performance is a virtual dead heat. Both Cinebench R20 single-core and R23 single-core scores are identical: 164 in R20 and 392 in R23 for both processors. The Opteron 4386 is credited with the win in both cases due to the tie-breaking convention, but the data shows no measurable difference in single-threaded capability.

The practical takeaway from the wins column is that the Opteron 4386 holds a razor-thin edge in every recorded test, while the Xeon W3570 never surpasses it. For workloads that rely on multi-threaded rendering, which is what Cinebench measures, the AMD part is nominally better, but the margin is so small that real-world differences would be imperceptible. The Intel processor's 4 cores and 8 threads are clearly competitive with AMD's 8 cores and 8 threads in these specific benchmarks, which is notable given the architectural gulf between the two designs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD Opteron 4386 belongs to the Opteron 4000 series, built on the Piledriver architecture with the codename "Seoul." It uses a 32 nm process node and packs 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel Xeon W3570, by contrast, is a Nehalem-generation part codenamed "Bloomfield," manufactured on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors and a 263 mm² die size. The process node gap, 32 nm versus 45 nm, explains why AMD fits nearly 64% more transistors into a die that is only about 20% larger.

Core counts differ substantially. The Opteron 4386 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon W3570 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This means the Intel part relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads, whereas AMD achieves the same thread count with physical cores alone. The Opteron also has a larger aggregate L2 cache: 8 MB total compared to 256 KB per core on the Xeon (which works out to 1 MB total for 4 cores). Both share an 8 MB L3 cache, though the AMD L3 is explicitly labeled as shared.

Clock speeds favor Intel on paper. The Xeon W3570 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.47 GHz, while the Opteron 4386 runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The AMD part's higher boost ceiling (3.80 GHz versus 3.47 GHz) partially offsets its lower base frequency. Thermal design power (TDP) is a different story: the Opteron 4386 draws 95 W, while the Xeon W3570 is rated at 130 W, a 35 W gap that is notable given the Intel part has half the physical cores.

Memory support differs in channel configuration. Both support DDR3, but the Xeon W3570 explicitly lists triple-channel memory, while the Opteron 4386's memory bus is unspecified in the data. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, while the Opteron 4386 does not list ECC support. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, and the AMD part has no PCIe generation listed. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket C32 for the Opteron versus Intel Socket 1366 for the Xeon. The Intel part is marked end-of-life, while the AMD part has no production status listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are tightly clustered, with the largest delta being a mere 0.4%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron 4386 scores 280 against the Xeon W3570's 279. The 0.4% delta is the biggest margin in any test, yet it represents just a single point. This is the kind of difference that falls well within run-to-run variance for Cinebench, meaning the Opteron's "win" here is more about the recorded score than any meaningful performance advantage.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1168 for the Opteron and 1165 for the Xeon, a 0.3% delta. Again, three points separate the two. The R23 multi-core test is closer still: 2782 versus 2776, a 0.2% delta with six points of separation. Interestingly, the absolute point gap grows slightly as the workload scales (1 point in R15, 3 in R20, 6 in R23), but the percentage delta shrinks because the scores are larger in absolute terms.

The single-core tests are exact ties. Both R20 single-core and R23 single-core show identical scores of 164 and 392, respectively, for both processors. The winner is listed as the AMD Opteron 4386 with a 0% delta, which is a tie-breaker designation rather than a performance advantage. In practical terms, the two processors deliver identical single-threaded Cinebench results.

When interpreting these numbers, the average benchmark scores provide context. The Opteron 4386 has an average benchmark score of 957, and the Xeon W3570 sits at 955. The Opteron's nearest rival list includes the Intel Core i7-950 at 957 (0% delta), the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 (0.1% delta), and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 at 958 (-0.1% delta). The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Celeron N5105 at 955 (0% delta), the Intel Xeon W3550 at 956 (-0.1% delta), and the same AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 (-0.1% delta). Both processors sit in the 25th-26th percentile of all CPUs, which places them in the lower quarter of the performance distribution.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 has 8 physical cores, while the Intel Xeon W3570 has 4 physical cores. Both support 8 threads, but the Intel part requires Hyper-Threading to reach that count.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Xeon W3570 wins?

A: No. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD Opteron 4386 wins every one, though the margins range from 0% to 0.4%. The Intel part never surpasses the AMD in any recorded test.

Q: How different are the single-core scores?

A: They are identical. Both processors score 164 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 392 in Cinebench R23 single-core. There is no measurable single-threaded performance difference in these tests.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 has a TDP of 95 W, while the Intel Xeon W3570 has a TDP of 130 W. This means the AMD part is rated for lower power consumption despite having twice the physical cores.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon W3570 lists ECC memory support. The AMD Opteron 4386 does not list ECC support in the data.

Q: How do these processors rank against all CPUs?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 is in the 26th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel Xeon W3570 is in the 25th percentile. Both are in the lower quarter of overall performance distribution.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow picture. The AMD Opteron 4386 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, yet the largest margin is 0.4%. For anyone choosing between these two based purely on Cinebench performance, the Opteron 4386 is technically the better pick, it never loses a recorded test. However, the practical significance of a 0.2% to 0.4% multi-core advantage is minimal; real-world workloads would not reliably distinguish between these processors.

The architectural differences suggest distinct use cases. The Opteron 4386 offers 8 physical cores with a 95 W TDP, making it the more power-efficient choice per core and the better option for workloads that scale with physical core count. Its 3.80 GHz boost clock also gives it a higher peak frequency for burst workloads. The Xeon W3570, with 4 cores and 8 threads, relies on Hyper-Threading and a 130 W TDP, which is a less efficient configuration for the same thread count. However, the Xeon supports ECC memory and triple-channel DDR3, which may matter for certain server or workstation reliability requirements.

The percentile rankings reinforce the closeness: 26th percentile for the Opteron versus 25th for the Xeon. The average benchmark scores (957 versus 955) are effectively tied, and both processors share nearly identical rival pools, the Intel Core i7-950, AMD Athlon X4 870K, and Intel Xeon W3550 all appear within 0.2% of one or both parts. There is no meaningful performance hierarchy here; the Opteron 4386 is nominally ahead, but the Xeon W3570 is not a step behind in any practical sense.

For a server or workstation buyer, the choice comes down to platform and feature priorities. The AMD Opteron 4386 is the better pick for multi-threaded rendering where the extra physical cores and lower TDP provide a slight edge. The Intel Xeon W3570 is the better pick for environments that require ECC memory and triple-channel memory bandwidth, provided the 130 W TDP and 4-core configuration are acceptable. If the data is the only guide, the Opteron 4386 wins on raw benchmark results, but the margins are so thin that the Xeon W3570 remains a fully viable alternative for most workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Opteron 4386 | Intel Xeon W3570 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.47 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 130 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket C32 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Architecture | Piledriver | Nehalem |

| Codename | Seoul | Bloomfield |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 45 nm |

| Transistors | 1,200 million | 731 million |

| Die Size | 315 mm² | 263 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 8 MB | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Not listed | Triple-channel |

| ECC Memory | Not listed | Yes |

| PCIe | Not listed | Gen 2 |

| Production Status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-12-03 | 2009-03-29 |

| Part Number | OS4386WLU8KHK | SLBES |