AMD Opteron 6212 vs Intel Xeon E5640 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6212 has 8 cores, while the Intel Xeon E5640 has 4 cores. Both processors support 8 threads, meaning the Xeon relies on simultaneous multithreading to match the Opteron's thread count.

Q: How do the two compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 6212 records an average benchmark score of 1162, placing it in the 33rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Xeon E5640 scores 1137 on average, which lands in the 32nd percentile. The Opteron holds a slim lead of roughly 2.2% in aggregate performance.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Opteron 6212 boosts to 3.20 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5640 boosts to 2.93 GHz. The Opteron also has a slightly lower base clock at 2.60 GHz compared to the Xeon's 2.67 GHz.

Q: What is the memory channel configuration for each processor?

A: The AMD Opteron 6212 supports quad-channel DDR3 memory with a peak bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Intel Xeon E5640 uses triple-channel DDR3 memory, and the database does not list a bandwidth figure for it.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The AMD Opteron 6212 was released on November 13, 2011, and the Intel Xeon E5640 was released earlier, on March 15, 2010.

Q: Which processor wins in all recorded head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Opteron 6212 wins all five direct comparisons against the Intel Xeon E5640, with margins ranging from 2.1% to 2.4% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Opteron 6212 and Intel Xeon E5640 represent two fundamentally different server architectures from the early 2010s. The Opteron uses AMD's Bulldozer architecture under the Interlagos codename, while the Xeon uses Intel's Westmere architecture under the Westmere-EP codename.

The most striking architectural divergence is in core organization. The Opteron 6212 packs 8 physical cores into a dual-die package, with each die measuring 315 mm² and containing 8 MB of L3 cache. The Xeon E5640 has 4 physical cores on a single 239 mm² die, but shares 12 MB of L3 cache across all cores. This means the Xeon offers more total L3 cache (12 MB vs. 8 MB per die, though the Opteron's total is effectively 16 MB across two dies) but fewer physical execution units.

The process nodes are identical at 32 nm, but the foundries differ: GlobalFoundries produces the Opteron, while Intel fabricates the Xeon. Transistor counts tell a revealing story: the Opteron integrates 2,400 million transistors across its dual dies, while the Xeon has 1,170 million on a single die. This reflects the Opteron's more complex multi-module design.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Opteron has 768 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache per module. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The Opteron's L2 is organized per module, meaning pairs of cores share resources, while the Xeon gives each core its own dedicated L2 slice.

Memory architecture follows different paths as well. The Opteron supports quad-channel DDR3 with a rated bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, a wider memory pipe than the Xeon's triple-channel setup. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server platforms. The Opteron uses AMD Socket G34, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366.

Neither processor includes integrated graphics, and both use PCIe Gen 2. The Opteron's power envelope is higher at 115 W TDP versus the Xeon's 80 W TDP, reflecting the additional cores and larger die area. The Opteron's launch MSRP was $266; the Xeon's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear, consistent pattern: the AMD Opteron 6212 wins every recorded comparison. However, the margins are narrow, which shapes how each processor might be preferred in specific workloads.

The Opteron's advantage is most pronounced in multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 340 versus the Xeon's 332, a 2.4% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Opteron scores 1418 against 1387, a 2.2% edge. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Opteron posts 3377 versus 3303, again 2.2% ahead. These gains likely stem from the Opteron's 8 physical cores providing raw parallel throughput, even if each individual module shares resources.

Single-thread performance also favors the Opteron, but by slightly smaller margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 199 versus 195, a 2.1% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 476 versus 466, also 2.1% ahead. The Opteron's higher boost clock of 3.20 GHz versus 2.93 GHz on the Xeon helps explain this advantage in lightly threaded tasks.

The Intel Xeon E5640 does not win any of the five head-to-head tests. Its strengths lie elsewhere: it has a lower 80 W TDP, which indicates lower power draw, and it uses a simpler single-die design. For workloads that are heavily latency-sensitive and benefit from a large shared L3 cache, the Xeon's 12 MB shared cache might offer advantages in certain database or virtualization scenarios, but the recorded Cinebench data does not capture such workloads.

The Opteron also holds a marginal edge in average benchmark score: 1162 versus 1137, a difference of about 2.2%. Both processors sit in the low 30s percentile globally, meaning they are well below modern mainstream performance levels. For legacy server deployments where multi-threaded throughput matters more than power efficiency, the Opteron 6212 is the better choice based on the data. For environments prioritizing lower power draw and simpler cooling requirements, the Xeon E5640 could be preferred, though it sacrifices benchmark performance.

Specification Differences

The following specification fields differ between the AMD Opteron 6212 and Intel Xeon E5640:

• Cores: 8 (Opteron) vs. 4 (Xeon)
• Threads: 8 (both, but Opteron uses 8 physical cores, Xeon uses 4 cores with hyper-threading)
• Base clock: 2.60 GHz (Opteron) vs. 2.67 GHz (Xeon)
• Boost clock: 3.20 GHz (Opteron) vs. 2.93 GHz (Xeon)
• TDP: 115 W (Opteron) vs. 80 W (Xeon)
• Socket: AMD Socket G34 vs. Intel Socket 1366
• Architecture: Bulldozer vs. Westmere
• Codename: Interlagos vs. Westmere-EP
• Generation: Opteron (Interlagos) vs. Xeon (Westmere-EP)
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries vs. Intel
• Transistors: 2,400 million vs. 1,170 million
• Die size: 2x 315 mm² vs. 239 mm²
• L1 cache: 768 KB vs. 64 KB (per core)
• L2 cache: 2 MB (per module) vs. 256 KB (per core)
• L3 cache: 8 MB (per die) vs. 12 MB (shared)
• Memory bus: Quad-channel vs. Triple-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s vs. not listed
• Release date: 2011-11-13 vs. 2010-03-15
• Launch MSRP: $266 vs. not listed
• Part number: OS6212WKT8GGU vs. SLBVC

Fields that are identical include: manufacturer-specific naming aside, both use DDR3 memory, both support ECC, both use PCIe Gen 2, neither has integrated graphics, both target the server/workstation segment, both are end-of-life, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison across five Cinebench tests shows a uniform result: the AMD Opteron 6212 wins every round, but the margins are tight enough that the Xeon E5640 remains competitive in absolute terms.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 340 against the Xeon's 332. This 2.4% delta is the largest margin in any test. The Opteron's 8 physical cores likely provide the edge in this older rendering workload, which scales well with core count. The Xeon's 4 cores with 8 threads manage to stay close, but cannot overcome the raw core advantage.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar story. The Opteron scores 1418, the Xeon 1387, a 2.2% difference. The absolute scores are roughly four times higher than R15, reflecting the newer benchmark's heavier workload, but the relative gap remains stable. This consistency suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific.

Single-core tests produce the closest margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 199 versus 195, a 2.1% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Opteron posts 476 against 466, also 2.1%. The Opteron's higher boost clock of 3.20 GHz helps it edge ahead, but the Xeon's 2.93 GHz boost is close enough to keep the gap small. The Xeon's per-core cache allocation (256 KB L2 per core) may partially compensate for the lower clock.

Cinebench R23 multi-core rounds out the comparison: Opteron 3377, Xeon 3303, a 2.2% margin. This test is the most demanding in the suite, and the Opteron's 8 physical cores again prove decisive, albeit narrowly.

The aggregate figures reinforce this pattern. The Opteron's average benchmark score is 1162, placing it in the 33rd percentile, while the Xeon averages 1137 in the 32nd percentile. The Opteron's nearest rival is the AMD Opteron 6220 at 1168, just 0.5% higher, and the Intel Core i5-3450 at 1166, 0.4% higher. The Xeon's closest competitor is the AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE at 1138, 0.1% higher, and the Intel Core i5-2550K at 1136, 0.1% lower.

The data indicates that the Opteron 6212 holds a consistent, if modest, performance advantage across all recorded benchmarks. The Xeon E5640, despite having half the physical cores, stays within 2.4% due to its higher base clock and efficient Westmere architecture. For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life server processors, the Opteron offers the better benchmark performance, while the Xeon offers lower TDP and a simpler single-die design.