AMD Opteron 6238 vs Intel Xeon E-2104G Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E-2104G wins every single recorded test. Across six Cinebench workloads, spanning R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core configurations, the Intel part takes all six wins. The AMD Opteron 6238 records zero wins in this head-to-head comparison.

The margin is narrow but uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel chip scores 488 against the AMD's 481, a 1.5% advantage. The single-core test shows the same 1.5% gap, with 68 versus 67. Move to Cinebench R20 and the pattern holds: multicore sees 2035 versus 2008 (1.3% ahead), while single-core shows 287 versus 283 (1.4% ahead). Cinebench R23 continues the trend with 4847 versus 4781 in multicore (1.4%) and 684 versus 675 in single-core (1.3%).

The data implies that the Xeon E-2104G does not win because of raw core count or thread count, since it has only 4 cores and 4 threads against the Opteron's 12 cores and 12 threads. Instead, it wins on efficiency per clock and per core design. The Intel architecture extracts more work from each individual core, and in a three-generation span of Cinebench versions, that advantage remains steady. The Opteron's 12 cores cannot overcome the Intel's architectural superiority in these workloads, regardless of whether the workload scales across cores or stays within a single core.

Neither chip dominates the broader database rankings by much. The Xeon E-2104G sits at the 37th percentile of all CPUs, while the Opteron 6238 holds the 36th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Intel part is 1402, while the Opteron averages 1383, a gap of roughly 1.4% in raw average score terms.

Architecture Differences

The underlying designs could hardly be more different. The Intel Xeon E-2104G belongs to the Xeon E-2100 series, built on the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It uses 4 cores with 4 threads and no boost clock, holding a fixed 3.20 GHz base clock. Its cache layout is per-core oriented: 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core and 8 MB of shared L3 across the entire chip. The die measures 126 mm².

The AMD Opteron 6238 comes from the Opteron 6000 series with a Bulldozer architecture on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It features 12 cores and 12 threads, with a 2.60 GHz base clock and a 3.20 GHz boost clock. Its cache structure is radically different, using 768 KB of L1 total, 2 MB per module for L2 and 8 MB per die for L3 across two dies, with a total transistor count of 2,400 million and a die size of 2x 315 mm².

Memory support diverges as well. The Xeon E-2104G supports DDR4 on a dual-channel memory bus with 42.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Opteron 6238 supports DDR3 on a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, meaning the older AMD chip has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth figure despite being physically larger and older. The Xeon also has integrated UHD Graphics P630, while the Opteron has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes CPU only and an Intel Socket 7, while the Opteron uses PCIe Gen 2 on an AMD Socket G34 socket.

Both processors share ECC memory support and locked multipliers, neither unlocked. The Xeon E-2104G was released in July 2018, while the Opteron 6238 was released in November 2011, a difference of roughly seven years. Both are end-of-life production parts. The Xeon carries a 65 W TDP, while the Opteron uses 115 W TDP, meaning the older AMD part draws substantially more power for its higher core count.

The architecture differences point to two diverging philosophies. Intel built a small, power-conscious die with fewer cores but higher per-core resources and a modern node. AMD built a massive dual-die design with many cores and a much larger transistor pool. The Xeon's 4 cores share 8 MB L3 cache for a tight 126 mm² die, a compact server design for its era. The Opteron spreads 12 cores across 630 mm² of total die area, split across two dies.

What the data shows is that the Intel architecture wins consistently despite its lower core count. The Bulldozer architecture in the Opteron, which is also known as Interlagos, uses a per-module L2 cache arrangement that appears less effective per core in these Cinebench workloads. The Coffee Lake-S WS design in the Xeon, a workstation variant of Coffee Lake, delivers higher single-core and multi-core scores at lower TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six recorded head-to-head benchmarks all go to the Intel Xeon E-2104G. The largest margin occurs in two tests with a 1.5% delta: Cinebench R15 multicore and Cinebench R15 single-core. In the R15 multicore test the Xeon scores 488, the Opteron 481; in the single-core test the Xeon scores 68, the Opteron 67. The 1.5% gap is small, but it is the widest gap seen across the full suite.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern with a 1.3% multicore delta (2035 versus 2008) and a 1.4% single-core delta (287 versus 283). Cinebench R23 shows a 1.4% multicore delta (4847 versus 4781) and a 1.3% single-core delta (684 versus 675). Every delta falls between 1.3% and 1.5%, a remarkably narrow band of performance difference.

The consistency matters. Across three versions of Cinebench, the relative performance gap does not widen or shrink by much. The Intel chip stays ahead by roughly the same margin in both single-core and multi-core tests. This suggests the performance advantage comes from a fundamental per-core efficiency difference, not from workload scaling or cache effects.

The average benchmark score confirms the pattern. The Intel Xeon E-2104G averages 1402 across all benchmark records, while the AMD Opteron 6238 averages 1383. The nearest rivals for the Intel chip include the Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 at 1401 (0.1% behind), the Intel Pentium Gold G7400TE at 1404 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i5-6500TE at 1399 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 at 1396 (0.4% behind). The Opteron's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3615QE at 1381 (0.2% behind), the Intel Core i3-9100TE at 1386 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Opteron 6366 HE at 1379 (0.3% behind), and the AMD Opteron 6274 at 1387 (0.3% ahead).

The fact that the Opteron's nearest rivals include other Opteron parts, the Opteron 6366 HE and Opteron 6274, and Intel Core i7 and i3 parts, shows that its average score places it in a similar performance neighborhood as the Xeon E-2104G, despite the Xeon carrying a higher percentile ranking. The Xeon sits at the 37th percentile, the Opteron at the 36th, so both are near the lower-middle range of all CPUs in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2104G wins all 6 head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Opteron 6238 wins 0.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is 1.5%, recorded in both Cinebench R15 multicore and Cinebench R15 single-core.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238 has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Xeon E-2104G has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2104G has an average benchmark score of 1402, while the AMD Opteron 6238 averages 1383.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2104G ranks at the 37th percentile of all CPUs, and the AMD Opteron 6238 ranks at the 36th percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238 has a TDP of 115 W, whereas the Intel Xeon E-2104G has a TDP of 65 W.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E-2104G and the AMD Opteron 6238 support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The Intel Xeon E-2104G has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Opteron 6238 has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Intel chip runs at a 3.20 GHz base clock with no boost clock. The AMD chip runs at a 2.60 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.20 GHz.

The TDP differs significantly: 65 W for the Xeon E-2104G versus 115 W for the Opteron 6238. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, the Opteron uses AMD Socket G34. The Xeon is built on Coffee Lake at 14 nm, the Opteron on Bulldozer at 32 nm. The foundry differs: Intel for the Xeon, GlobalFoundries for the Opteron.

The cache arrangements are entirely different. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB L3 shared. The Opteron has 768 KB L1 total, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die. The die sizes also differ: the Xeon measures 126 mm², the Opteron measures 2x 315 mm². The Opteron has 2,400 million transistors, while the Xeon has no recorded transistor count.

Memory support differs: the Xeon uses DDR4 with dual-channel support and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, the Opteron uses DDR3 with quad-channel support and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon has integrated UHD Graphics P630, the Opteron has no integrated graphics. PCIe generations differ: the Xeon uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, the Opteron uses Gen 2.

The release dates are roughly seven years apart: July 2018 for the Xeon, November 2011 for the Opteron. The launch MSRP differs as well, with the Xeon E-2104G at $193 and the Opteron 6238 at $455, though that figure represents only the original launch price for each. Both parts are end-of-life, both have locked multipliers, and both support ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for most workloads. The Intel Xeon E-2104G wins every benchmark in the recorded head-to-head suite, with margins between 1.3% and 1.5% across all six tests. It achieves this with 4 cores and 4 threads against the Opteron's 12 cores and 12 threads, at a 65 W TDP compared to the Opteron's 115 W. It also ranks one percentile higher, at 37 versus 36, and has a higher average benchmark score.

The AMD Opteron 6238 offers more cores and threads, which could matter for workloads that are not represented in these Cinebench tests. The database only records Cinebench scores, so the Opteron's 12-core design may have advantages in other types of parallel workloads that scale differently. Its quad-channel DDR3 memory support gives it a higher theoretical memory bandwidth figure of 51.2 GB/s versus the Xeon's 42.7 GB/s, which could help memory-bound tasks.

However, for the workloads in the database, the Intel Xeon E-2104G is the better performer. It delivers slightly higher scores in every Cinebench test while drawing less power and using a smaller die. The Opteron's higher core count does not translate into better Cinebench results, likely due to the per-core efficiency difference between the Coffee Lake architecture and the Bulldozer architecture.

A buyer looking at this data should choose the Intel Xeon E-2104G for Cinebench-class workloads, meaning short-burst single-threaded and moderate multi-threaded rendering tasks. A buyer considering the AMD Opteron 6238 would need workloads that specifically benefit from 12 cores and 12 threads and the higher memory bandwidth of quad-channel DDR3, though the recorded benchmarks do not demonstrate such an advantage.

The narrow margins are notable. A 1.3% to 1.5% gap is not large in absolute terms, and real-world differences could vary depending on system configuration, cooling, and workload mix. But the consistency of the Intel advantage across three Cinebench generations, from R15 to R23, suggests it is a real architectural difference rather than measurement noise.

The percentile data reinforces the overall picture. At the 37th percentile versus the 36th percentile, both processors sit near the same performance tier in the database, but the Intel chip edges ahead. The nearest rival data for each part shows that the Xeon E-2104G competes with Intel Xeon E3 and Core i5 class parts, while the Opteron 6238 competes with Intel Core i7 and i3 parts plus other Opteron models. Both are older, end-of-life server and workstation processors, but the Intel part is the one with the benchmark wins.