AMD Opteron 6238 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 and AMD Opteron 6238 represent two distinct approaches to server processing from different eras. The data shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel part across every benchmark recorded, despite the AMD processor offering triple the physical cores. This analysis walks through the benchmark deltas, architectural implications, and use-case scenarios strictly based on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform. Across all six Cinebench tests—spanning R15, R20, and R23 versions—the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins every single matchup. The largest margin of victory occurs in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where Intel scores 68 versus AMD's 67, a delta of 1.5%. The smallest deltas are 0.9%, seen in both the Cinebench R20 multicore test (2027 vs 2008) and the Cinebench R23 single-core test (681 vs 675).

The multicore results are particularly telling given the hardware disparity. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel chip scores 4827 against the Opteron's 4781, a 1% advantage. This is despite the Opteron 6238 having 12 cores and 12 threads compared to the Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel processor's 22 nm Haswell architecture clearly extracts more usable performance per core than the 32 nm Bulldozer design. The AMD part's higher base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost clock of 3.20 GHz do not translate into a win; the Xeon's 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost clocks prove sufficient.

In the Cinebench R20 single-core test, Intel wins 286 to 283, a 1.1% delta. The R15 single-core result shows 68 versus 67. These single-threaded margins, while small, consistently favor the Haswell architecture. The pattern suggests that Intel's per-core efficiency offsets AMD's core count advantage in every workload captured here. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the Xeon E3-1240L v3 averages 1396 across all tests, while the Opteron 6238 averages 1383, placing them at the 37th and 36th percentiles of all CPUs, respectively.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, overall winner: the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, and its average benchmark score of 1396 exceeds the Opteron's 1383. The Intel part also achieves this with dramatically lower power consumption—a 25 W TDP versus 115 W for the AMD chip—though that figure is not a benchmark score, it is a specification difference that matters for dense server deployments.

Who should pick the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3? Anyone running single-threaded or lightly threaded workloads where per-core performance is paramount. The consistent single-core wins, though small, indicate better instruction-level efficiency. The 4-core/8-thread configuration with 8 MB of shared L3 cache is well-suited for virtualization hosts running many small VMs or for latency-sensitive database queries. The 25 W TDP also suggests it can be cooled passively or with minimal airflow, a factor for compact or silent server builds.

Who should pick the AMD Opteron 6238? The data does not support a benchmark-based recommendation, as it loses every test. However, the 12-core/12-thread configuration and quad-channel DDR3 memory bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth indicate a platform designed for memory-bandwidth-hungry, highly parallel workloads. If a workload scales linearly with core count and is not represented by the Cinebench suite, the Opteron's additional cores might be useful—but none of the recorded benchmarks show this advantage. The Opteron's nearest rival, the AMD Opteron 6366 HE, scores 1379 (0.3% behind), while the Intel part's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-6500TE, scores 1399 (0.2% ahead of the Xeon).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. It contains 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 6238 uses the Bulldozer architecture on a 32 nm process, fabricated by GlobalFoundries, with 2,400 million transistors spread across two 315 mm² dies.

Cache layouts differ fundamentally. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 768 KB total L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. This means the Opteron's 12 cores share L3 across two dies, while the Xeon's 4 cores share a single 8 MB pool.

Memory support shows another divergence. Both support DDR3 and ECC memory, but the Intel part uses a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD part uses a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Opteron has double the theoretical memory bandwidth. PCIe support also differs: the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Opteron provides Gen 2. The Intel part uses Socket 1150, the AMD part uses Socket G34.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins all 6 head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Opteron 6238 wins 0.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between them?

A: The largest delta is 1.5%, in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the Intel part scores 68 versus 67 for AMD.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 averages 1396, while the AMD Opteron 6238 averages 1383. Both sit near the 36th-37th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Do they use the same memory architecture?

A: No. The Intel part uses dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part uses quad-channel DDR3 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC.

Q: What are their TDP ratings?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 has a TDP of 25 W. The AMD Opteron 6238 has a TDP of 115 W.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238 has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins in every benchmark category recorded, so its advantages are clear-cut. It wins all single-core tests: R15 (68 vs 67), R20 (286 vs 283), and R23 (681 vs 675). It wins all multicore tests: R15 (486 vs 481), R20 (2027 vs 2008), and R23 (4827 vs 4781). It also has a lower TDP, a more advanced 22 nm process node, and PCIe Gen 3 support.

The AMD Opteron 6238's theoretical wins come from its specifications rather than benchmark results. It offers 12 physical cores versus 4, a higher base clock (2.60 GHz vs 2.00 GHz) and boost clock (3.20 GHz vs 3.00 GHz), double the memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s vs 25.6 GB/s), and a quad-channel memory bus. It also has a larger transistor count (2,400 million vs 1,400 million) and a larger aggregate die area (2x 315 mm² vs 160 mm²). None of these advantages translate into a benchmark win in the data provided, but they describe a platform with different design goals—throughput-oriented rather than efficiency-oriented.

For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound, the Opteron's quad-channel setup might be preferable, but the Cinebench results do not reflect such a scenario. For workloads that are latency-sensitive or single-threaded, the Intel part's consistent single-core wins make it the safer choice. The Xeon's 25 W TDP also makes it viable for passively cooled systems, while the Opteron's 115 W TDP requires active cooling. The Intel part's 8 MB shared L3 cache serves 4 cores, providing more cache per core than the Opteron's 8 MB per die serving 6 cores per die.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: Intel 4 vs AMD 12
• Threads: Intel 8 vs AMD 12
• Base Clock: Intel 2.00 GHz vs AMD 2.60 GHz
• Boost Clock: Intel 3.00 GHz vs AMD 3.20 GHz
• TDP: Intel 25 W vs AMD 115 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1150 vs AMD Socket G34
• Architecture: Haswell vs Bulldozer
• Codename: Haswell-WS vs Interlagos
• Process Node: 22 nm vs 32 nm
• Foundry: Intel vs GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 1,400 million vs 2,400 million
• Die Size: 160 mm² vs 2x 315 mm²
• L1 Cache: 64 KB (per core) vs 768 KB
• L2 Cache: 256 KB (per core) vs 2 MB (per module)
• L3 Cache: 8 MB (shared) vs 8 MB (per die)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel vs Quad-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 25.6 GB/s vs 51.2 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) vs Gen 2
• Release Date: 2014-05-10 vs 2011-11-13
• Launch MSRP: $278 vs $455
• Part Number: SR1T8 vs OS6238WKTCGGU

Both parts are end-of-life, lack integrated graphics, are not multiplier-unlocked, and target the server/workstation market segment.