AMD Opteron 6238 vs Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6238 and the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 represent two distinct server platforms from different eras, one built around AMD’s 12-core Bulldozer design and the other around Intel’s 4-core Ivy Bridge architecture. Both are end-of-life server/workstation parts, and the benchmark data shows a remarkably close contest despite their architectural differences. The recorded scores place both processors at the 36th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 15 points, a margin of roughly 1.1 percent. This analysis examines the head-to-head results, the use cases each processor favors, and the architectural factors that explain their near-identical performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six recorded Cinebench tests, spanning R15, R20, and R23, yield a clean sweep for the AMD Opteron 6238. The AMD part wins all six tests, but the margins are extremely narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Opteron 6238 scores 481 against the Xeon E5-1410 v2’s 476, a delta of 1.1 percent. The single-core R15 test is a perfect tie, with both processors scoring 67 points, which the database records as a win for the AMD part due to the tie-breaking rule. This is not a meaningful advantage; the two chips deliver identical single-threaded performance in that test.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron 6238 scores 2008 in multicore, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 scores 1987, again a 1.1 percent lead. The single-core R20 results are 283 for the AMD part and 280 for the Intel part, a 1.1 percent edge for the Opteron. The pattern holds in the newest test, Cinebench R23. The AMD processor scores 4781 in multicore, and the Intel processor scores 4732, a 1 percent difference. In single-core R23, the Opteron 6238 posts 675 versus the Xeon’s 668, also a 1 percent lead.

The cumulative picture is one of consistent but minimal superiority for the AMD Opteron 6238. The largest margin across all tests is 1.1 percent, and the smallest is zero. This is not a case of one architecture dominating another; it is a statistical near-tie where the AMD part happens to be ahead in every recorded benchmark. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the Opteron 6238 has an average score of 1383, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 has an average of 1368. The 15-point difference is less than the variance between the AMD part and its nearest rivals, which include the Intel Core i3-9100TE at 1386 (a 0.2 percent delta) and the AMD Opteron 6274 at 1387 (a 0.3 percent delta).

For the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2, its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-1521 at 1367 (0.1 percent delta), the AMD Opteron 6376 at 1370 (a 0.1 percent delta), and the Intel Core i7-2600 at 1370 (a 0.2 percent delta). These rival scores are all within a few points of both processors in this comparison, reinforcing that this head-to-head is between two mid-pack server chips that are effectively interchangeable in raw Cinebench throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The data does not show any benchmark category where the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 takes a lead. The AMD Opteron 6238 wins all six tests, but the wins are so small that they do not translate into a clear use-case advantage. Instead, the two processors are best differentiated by their underlying specifications, which suggest different workloads despite similar Cinebench scores.

The AMD Opteron 6238 has 12 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 2.60 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. It draws 115 watts and uses a quad-channel DDR3 memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. This configuration is aimed at heavily threaded workloads that can use many cores, such as virtualization hosts, database servers, or compilation tasks that scale with core count. The 12-core count is three times that of the Intel part, and the memory bandwidth is 60 percent higher (51.2 GB/s versus 32.0 GB/s), which can benefit memory-intensive applications.

The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has only 4 cores and 8 threads, but its base clock is higher at 2.80 GHz, and its boost clock matches the AMD part at 3.20 GHz. It uses a triple-channel DDR3 bus with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth and has a lower 80-watt TDP. With fewer cores but a higher base clock, the Intel part is better suited for lightly threaded workloads where single-core frequency matters, though the benchmark data shows its single-core scores are essentially identical to the AMD part. The lower TDP and smaller die size (257 mm² versus 2x 315 mm² for the AMD) suggest the Xeon operates with less power draw, making it a candidate for power-constrained environments, even if the performance is comparable.

The AMD processor also has a larger cache hierarchy in total. Its L1 cache is 768 KB, its L2 is 2 MB per module, and its L3 is 8 MB per die, with the processor having two dies. The Intel part has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 10 MB L3. For workloads that repeatedly access a large working set, the AMD’s aggregate cache might help, but the benchmark results do not isolate this effect. In practice, the only clear wins from the recorded data are the AMD’s six benchmark victories, all under 1.1 percent, which are not enough to declare a decisive advantage in any real-world task.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded Cinebench data, the AMD Opteron 6238 is the faster processor. It wins every benchmark, from Cinebench R15 single-core (67 points, tied) to Cinebench R23 multicore (4781 versus 4732). However, the margins are so narrow that they are unlikely to be perceptible in daily use. A 1 percent delta in multicore tests and a 0 percent delta in one single-core test mean that neither chip offers a meaningful performance edge for most applications.

For a user deciding between these two, the choice should come down to workload characteristics rather than benchmark scores. If the workload is heavily threaded and can use more than 8 threads, the AMD Opteron 6238’s 12 cores and 12 threads are the obvious choice, even if the performance gain is modest. The AMD part also offers higher memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s versus 32.0 GB/s), which may help in memory-bound server tasks. The AMD part’s higher TDP (115 watts versus 80 watts) is a trade-off, but the extra cores and bandwidth are the primary considerations.

If the workload is lightly threaded, or if power consumption is a priority, the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 is the more sensible pick. Its 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient for many server tasks, and its lower TDP means less heat and lower operating costs. The benchmark data shows that its single-core scores are within 1.1 percent of the AMD part, so it loses very little in single-threaded performance while using 35 watts less power.

The database’s average benchmark scores place both processors at the same percentile (36th), and their nearest rivals are all within a few points. This indicates that either processor would perform similarly to a wide range of other mid-range server CPUs. For a new deployment, neither chip is a clear winner, but the AMD Opteron 6238 has the edge in raw multi-threaded Cinebench scores, and the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has the edge in efficiency. The verdict is a split decision: choose the AMD for maximum core count and bandwidth, and choose the Intel for lower power draw and similar single-threaded performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238 has an average benchmark score of 1383, while the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has an average of 1368, a difference of 15 points.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Opteron 6238 in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238 scores 4781, and the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 scores 4732, giving the AMD part a 1 percent lead.

Q: Do the two processors have the same boost clock?

A: Yes, both the AMD Opteron 6238 and the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 have a boost clock of 3.20 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238 supports quad-channel DDR3 with 51.2 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 supports triple-channel DDR3 with 32.0 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238 has 12 cores and 12 threads, whereas the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Opteron 6238’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-9100TE with an average score of 1386, a 0.2 percent delta. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon D-1521 with an average score of 1367, a 0.1 percent delta.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures from different fabs and nodes. The AMD Opteron 6238 uses the Bulldozer architecture, codenamed Interlagos, and belongs to the Opteron 6000 series. It is fabricated on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with 2,400 million transistors spread across a die size of 2x 315 mm². The design uses two dies, each with its own 8 MB L3 cache, and the total L1 cache is 768 KB, with L2 cache at 2 MB per module. The processor supports DDR3 memory via a quad-channel bus and offers 51.2 GB/s of theoretical bandwidth. It features PCIe Gen 2 and supports ECC memory. The launch MSRP was $455, and it was released in November 2011.

The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, specifically the Ivy Bridge-EN codename, and is part of the Xeon E5 family. It is built on a 22 nm process by Intel, with 1,860 million transistors on a die size of 257 mm². The cache hierarchy is different: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 10 MB L3 cache. The memory support is DDR3 via a triple-channel bus with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth, and it also supports ECC memory. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 24 lanes (CPU only). This processor was released in January 2014, and no launch MSRP is recorded in the database.

The core count difference is stark: 12 cores for the AMD versus 4 cores for the Intel. The AMD part’s Bulldozer design uses modules, where each module has two integer cores but shares some resources, which explains the 12 threads for 12 cores. The Intel part uses Hyper-Threading, giving 8 threads from 4 cores. The base clocks differ as well, with the AMD at 2.60 GHz and the Intel at 2.80 GHz, though the boost clocks are identical at 3.20 GHz.

The process node advantage goes to Intel, with 22 nm versus AMD’s 32 nm, which contributes to the Intel part’s lower TDP of 80 watts versus 115 watts for the AMD part. The Intel processor also has a smaller die and fewer transistors, reflecting its more modern and denser manufacturing process. The memory buses differ, with AMD using quad-channel and Intel using triple-channel, leading to the 51.2 GB/s versus 32.0 GB/s bandwidth figures.

Neither processor has integrated graphics, and both are unlocked multipliers are false. The AMD part has a part number of OS6238WKTCGGU, and the Intel part has a part number of SR1B0. Both are end-of-life production status. The socket types are also different, with the AMD using Socket G34 and the Intel using Socket 1356. These architectural differences explain why two very different designs can end up with nearly identical Cinebench scores: the AMD relies on many cores and high memory bandwidth, while the Intel relies on a more efficient process, higher base clock, and shared cache. The recorded data shows that in this comparison, AMD’s wider core strategy produces a slight overall win, but the Intel part’s efficiency and lower power draw are significant advantages not captured in the Cinebench scores.