AMD Opteron 6238 vs AMD Opteron 6274 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually close contest between these two server processors. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD Opteron 6274 wins outright, yet the margins are razor-thin in every discipline. The largest gap appears in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the 6274 scores 68 against the 6238's 67, a delta of 1.5%. That is the only benchmark where the winner's advantage exceeds a single point.

In multi-core workloads, the 6274's 16 cores provide a measurable but modest edge over the 6238's 12 cores. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows 483 versus 481, a 0.4% delta. The R20 multi-core result follows the same pattern: 2014 versus 2008, again a 0.3% gap. The R23 multi-core test, the most demanding of the suite, produces 4796 versus 4781, also a 0.3% difference. These margins are consistent enough to suggest a structural advantage rather than run-to-run noise, but they are far smaller than the core-count difference might imply.

Single-core results tell a similar story. Beyond the R15 delta of 1.5%, the R20 single-core test shows 284 versus 283 (0.4%), and R23 single-core shows 677 versus 675 (0.3%). The 6274 sweeps all six head-to-head matchups, with a 6-0 win count. However, the aggregate picture is one of near-parity: the average benchmark score for the 6274 is 1387, while the 6238 sits at 1383, a difference of just 0.3%. In percentile terms against all CPUs tracked, the 6274 ranks at the 37th percentile and the 6238 at the 36th, placing both firmly in the same performance tier.

Looking at the nearest-rival data confirms how tightly clustered these parts are. The 6274's closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-9100TE with an average score of 1386, a delta of just 0.1% against the 6274. The 6238 trails the 6274 by 0.3% and sits 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-3615QE. The AMD Opteron 6366 HE appears in both rivals lists, scoring 1379, which is 0.6% behind the 6274 and 0.3% ahead of the 6238. These deltas are all within noise for most benchmarking purposes, yet the direction is consistent: the 6274 edges ahead in every direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental Bulldozer architecture from AMD's Interlagos generation, built on GlobalFoundries' 32 nm process node. Each chip integrates 2,400 million transistors across two dies, with each die measuring 315 mm². The socket is identical — AMD Socket G34 — and both use DDR3 memory with a quad-channel bus delivering 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both, and both provide PCIe Gen 2 connectivity. Neither part includes integrated graphics, and both are aimed at the server and workstation segment.

The critical architectural divergence lies in core count and cache organization. The 6274 packs 16 cores and 16 threads, while the 6238 offers 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count in both cases. The L1 cache is listed as 768 KB on both parts, though the 6274's entry notes "shared" while the 6238's does not. The L2 cache is 2 MB per module on both, and the L3 cache is 8 MB per die on both. The total transistor count and die size are identical, which suggests the 6274's additional four cores come at the expense of clock speed rather than silicon area.

Clock frequencies differ meaningfully. The 6274 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. The 6238 runs a higher base clock of 2.60 GHz and a slightly higher boost of 3.20 GHz. This clock advantage helps explain why the 12-core 6238 stays so close to the 16-core 6274 in multi-threaded benchmarks. The 6238's higher base frequency reduces the per-core performance gap, while its boost clock provides a small edge in lightly threaded scenarios — though the benchmark data shows the 6274 still wins even single-core tests.

Both processors draw 115 W TDP, share the same release date of November 13, 2011, and are marked end-of-life. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers differ — OS6274WKTGGGU for the 6274 and OS6238WKTCGGU for the 6238 — but the underlying platform capabilities are otherwise identical. The 6274's launch MSRP was $639, while the 6238 launched at $455.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6274 wins every benchmark in this comparison, but the magnitude and context of those wins matter more than the raw scoreboard. The 6274's largest advantage appears in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where it leads by 1.5%. This is counterintuitive given the 6238's higher boost clock of 3.20 GHz versus 3.10 GHz. The result suggests that the 6274's core architecture or cache behavior delivers marginally better single-thread efficiency at similar frequencies, despite the clock disadvantage.

For multi-threaded workloads, the 6274's 16 cores versus 12 cores provide a consistent, if modest, edge. The R15, R20, and R23 multi-core deltas all hover around 0.3-0.4%. In absolute terms, the 6274 scores 483, 2014, and 4796 across those three tests, while the 6238 scores 481, 2008, and 4781. The consistency of these margins across different Cinebench versions indicates a stable throughput advantage, likely stemming from the additional four physical cores.

The 6238's case for selection rests on narrower grounds. It offers a higher base clock of 2.60 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, which can translate to better responsiveness in lightly loaded or latency-sensitive server tasks that do not scale across many cores. Its boost clock of 3.20 GHz also exceeds the 6274's 3.10 GHz. However, the benchmark data does not show this translating into a single benchmark win — the 6274 takes even the single-core tests. The 6238's advantage is therefore more about power efficiency in idle or partial-load scenarios, though TDP is identical at 115 W for both.

For workloads that scale with core count — rendering, scientific computing, database throughput — the 6274 is the better choice by a thin margin. For workloads that are clock-bound or lightly threaded, the 6238's higher frequencies offer theoretical appeal, but the measured data shows the 6274 still winning those tests. The 6238's lower launch MSRP of $455 versus $639 makes it the lower-cost entry point, but the performance data does not reveal a scenario where the 6238 clearly outperforms the 6274.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following fields:

| Specification | AMD Opteron 6274 | AMD Opteron 6238 |

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

| Cores | 16 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| L1 cache | 768 KB (shared) | 768 KB |

| Part number | OS6274WKTGGGU | OS6238WKTCGGU |

| Launch MSRP | $639 | $455 |

All other specifications are identical: 115 W TDP, AMD Socket G34, Bulldozer architecture, Interlagos codename, 32 nm process, GlobalFoundries foundry, 2,400 million transistors, 2x 315 mm² die size, 2 MB L2 per module, 8 MB L3 per die, DDR3 memory, quad-channel bus, 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe Gen 2, no integrated graphics, server/workstation segment, end-of-life status, release date of 2011-11-13, and locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6274 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Opteron 6238 has 12 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238 runs at 2.60 GHz base, compared to the 6274's 2.20 GHz base. The 6238 also has a slightly higher boost clock of 3.20 GHz versus 3.10 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the 6274 in multi-core tests?

A: The 6274 leads by 0.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (483 vs 481), 0.3% in R20 multi-core (2014 vs 2008), and 0.3% in R23 multi-core (4796 vs 4781).

Q: Does the 6238 win any benchmark against the 6274?

A: No. Across all six Cinebench tests, the 6274 wins every matchup. The 6238's closest result is a 0.3% deficit in R20 and R23 multi-core.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The 6274 averages 1387 across all benchmarks, while the 6238 averages 1383, a 0.3% difference. The 6274 ranks at the 37th percentile against all CPUs, one percentile point above the 6238.

Q: Are the TDP and memory specifications the same?

A: Yes. Both have a 115 W TDP, support DDR3 with a quad-channel bus, deliver 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, and support ECC memory. Both also use PCIe Gen 2 and the AMD Socket G34.