AMD Opteron 4386 vs Intel Xeon X5560 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 has 8 physical cores with 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon X5560 has 4 physical cores with 8 threads. The Opteron offers double the physical core count, but both processors support an equal number of threads thanks to Intel's Hyper-Threading.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 leads in every single-core benchmark recorded. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 164 versus 162 for the Xeon X5560, a 1.2% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Opteron scores 392 against 388, a 1% lead.

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

A: The Opteron 4386 wins all three multi-core tests. Its largest margin is 1.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (280 versus 276). In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 1168 against 1154, and in R23 multi-core it scores 2782 versus 2749, both 1.2% leads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to 3.20 GHz for the Intel Xeon X5560. The Opteron's base clock is also higher at 3.10 GHz versus 2.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon X5560 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Opteron 4386 does not according to the database. This is a notable difference for server environments where error correction is critical.

Q: How do their process nodes differ?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 is built on a 32 nm process with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel Xeon X5560 uses a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The newer, smaller process gives AMD a transistor density advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep: the AMD Opteron 4386 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests. The Xeon X5560 does not claim a single victory. This makes the use-case split straightforward, but the margins are narrow enough that context matters.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Opteron 4386's advantage is consistent but modest. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it leads by 1.4%, which is its largest margin in any test. The R20 and R23 multi-core tests both show a 1.2% lead. These results suggest the Opteron's extra four physical cores provide a small but measurable edge in rendering tasks that scale with core count.

For single-threaded workloads, the Opteron 4386 again takes the lead, but by even thinner margins. The R20 single-core test shows a 1.2% difference, and the R23 single-core test shows exactly 1.0%. The higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz compared to 3.20 GHz likely contributes to this advantage, though the architectural differences also play a role.

The Xeon X5560's only clear advantage lies in platform features rather than raw benchmark scores. It supports ECC memory, which the Opteron does not, and it offers triple-channel memory support. It also carries a PCIe Gen 2 interface, while the Opteron's PCIe specification is not recorded in the database. For workloads where data integrity and memory bandwidth are prioritized over raw compute speed, the Xeon has a functional edge.

In terms of overall performance percentiles, the Opteron 4386 sits at the 26th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon X5560 sits at the 25th. Both processors occupy nearly identical positions in the global performance distribution, reinforcing that their benchmark scores are extremely close.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Opteron 4386 is built on the Piledriver architecture with the codename Seoul. It belongs to the Opteron 4000 series and uses a 32 nm manufacturing process. The chip integrates 1,200 million transistors across a 315 mm² die. Its cache layout includes 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Xeon X5560 uses the Nehalem architecture with the codename Gainestown. It is manufactured on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The cache design differs notably: 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The architectural divide is significant. Piledriver was designed to deliver more cores at a lower power envelope, which explains the Opteron's 8-core configuration at 95 W TDP. Nehalem was Intel's first generation to integrate the memory controller and use a ring bus for core-to-cache communication, but it was limited to 4 cores in this particular Xeon part.

The process node gap is substantial: 32 nm versus 45 nm. This gives the Opteron a transistor density of roughly 3.81 million transistors per mm², compared to 2.78 million for the Xeon. The newer process also contributes to the Opteron's higher clock speeds despite the higher core count.

The Opteron's L2 cache is unified across all cores, while the Xeon's L2 cache is partitioned per core. This design difference affects how cache-sensitive workloads behave. The shared L3 cache size is identical at 8 MB for both processors.

Both processors use DDR3 memory, but the Xeon X5560 specifies triple-channel memory support, while the Opteron 4386 does not list a memory bus configuration. The Xeon also explicitly supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Opteron's specification.

Specification Differences

The AMD Opteron 4386 and Intel Xeon X5560 differ across several key specifications. The Opteron has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. Core count is the most striking difference: the Opteron doubles the physical cores.

Clock speeds favor AMD. The Opteron's base clock is 3.10 GHz with a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Xeon's base clock is 2.80 GHz with a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Opteron's boost clock is 0.60 GHz higher, a substantial gap.

Both processors share a 95 W TDP, making them equivalent in thermal design power. This is notable given the Opteron's additional cores and higher clocks.

Sockets differ: the Opteron uses AMD Socket C32, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366. These sockets are not cross-compatible, meaning platform choice dictates which processor can be used.

The process nodes are 32 nm for AMD and 45 nm for Intel. Transistor counts are 1,200 million versus 731 million, and die sizes are 315 mm² versus 263 mm².

Cache configurations differ in structure. The Opteron has 384 KB L1 and 8 MB L2 (unified). The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, which totals 1 MB L2 for four cores. Both share 8 MB L3.

Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Xeon adds triple-channel support and ECC capability. The Xeon also lists PCIe Gen 2 support, which is absent from the Opteron's recorded specifications.

The release dates differ by nearly four years. The Xeon X5560 was released on March 29, 2009, while the Opteron 4386 was released on December 3, 2012. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the Opteron's production status is not recorded.

Part numbers are OS4386WLU8KHK for the Opteron and SLBF4 for the Xeon. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers five Cinebench tests. The AMD Opteron 4386 wins all five, but the margins are uniformly tight.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 280 against the Xeon's 276. The 1.4% delta is the largest of any test. This test benefits from the Opteron's 8 physical cores, which should provide a structural advantage in multi-threaded rendering.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 1168 for the Opteron versus 1154 for the Xeon, a 1.2% difference. The absolute gap is 14 points, which is small but consistent with the R15 result.

Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the 1.2% margin, with scores of 2782 and 2749 respectively. The 33-point gap is proportionally identical to the R20 result.

Single-core tests follow the same trend. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 164 against 162, a 1.2% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the scores are 392 and 388, a 1.0% difference.

The average benchmark scores reflect this closeness. The Opteron 4386 has an average score of 957, while the Xeon X5560 averages 946. This 11-point difference works out to roughly 1.2%, matching the head-to-head deltas.

Looking at nearest rivals adds context. The Opteron 4386 is statistically tied with the Intel Core i7-950 at 957 points, the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956, and the Intel Xeon W3550 at 956. The Xeon X5560 is tied with the Intel Pentium Gold G5400T and AMD Phenom II X6 1045T, both at 946 points.

The performance percentile ranking confirms the narrow gap: 26th percentile for the Opteron versus 25th for the Xeon. These are effectively adjacent positions in the global CPU performance distribution.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD Opteron 4386 outperforms the Intel Xeon X5560 in every recorded benchmark, but the margins are thin. The largest advantage is 1.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, and the smallest is 1.0% in Cinebench R23 single-core. No test shows a decisive victory for either processor.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in multi-threaded workloads, the Opteron 4386 is the better choice. Its 8 physical cores and higher clock speeds deliver consistent, if modest, wins across all rendering tests. The 1.2% to 1.4% advantages in multi-core tests suggest that applications which scale well with core count will see a slight but real benefit.

For users prioritizing single-threaded performance, the Opteron 4386 also holds a narrow edge. The 1.0% to 1.2% leads in single-core tests reflect its higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. This makes the Opteron the better pick for lightly threaded workloads as well.

The Xeon X5560's case rests on platform features rather than performance. It supports ECC memory, which is essential for mission-critical server workloads where memory errors cannot be tolerated. It also offers triple-channel memory support and PCIe Gen 2, features that may be more important than a 1% benchmark difference in certain enterprise deployments.

The release timeline favors the Opteron: it launched in December 2012, nearly four years after the Xeon's March 2009 debut. The Opteron's 32 nm process is two generations ahead of the Xeon's 45 nm node, which explains its higher transistor count and smaller feature size.

The Xeon X5560 is marked as end-of-life, while the Opteron 4386's production status is unrecorded. For new deployments, the Opteron is the more modern part with better benchmark results.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Opteron 4386 wins on performance across the board, making it the recommended choice for compute-focused workloads. The Intel Xeon X5560 remains viable only where its ECC memory support and specific platform features outweigh its slight performance deficit. Given the 26th versus 25th percentile rankings, neither processor represents a class-leading option, but the Opteron 4386 is the stronger of the two in every measured dimension.