AMD Opteron 6274 vs AMD Opteron 6376 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Opteron 6274 wins every recorded head-to-head comparison against the AMD Opteron 6376, though the margins are consistently narrow. Across all six Cinebench tests, the older Interlagos part outperforms the newer Abu Dhabi silicon by margins ranging from 1.3% to 1.5%. The largest single-core advantage comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Opteron 6274 scores 68 against the Opteron 6376's 67, a 1.5% gap. The multi-core tests tell a similar story: Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 483 versus 477, a 1.3% edge for the 6274, and Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 2014 against 1989, again a 1.3% lead.

The pattern holds across every generation of the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Opteron 6274 records 4796 points while the Opteron 6376 manages 4736, a 1.3% difference. Single-core R23 results are 677 versus 668, also a 1.3% margin. The R20 single-core test shows 284 versus 280, a 1.4% lead. These are not dramatic victories, but they are consistent. The Opteron 6274 wins all six recorded benchmarks, leaving the Opteron 6376 with zero wins in the head-to-head data.

The average benchmark score reinforces this ordering. The Opteron 6274 posts an average score of 1387, while the Opteron 6376 sits at 1370. That 17-point gap places the 6274 at the 37th percentile of all CPUs in the database, one point above the 6376's 36th percentile. The nearest rival data contextualizes these numbers: the Opteron 6274 sits within 0.6% of the AMD Opteron 6366 HE (average score 1379) and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-9100TE (average score 1386). The Opteron 6376, meanwhile, is exactly tied with the Intel Core i7-2600 at an average score of 1370, and within 0.3% of the Intel Xeon D-1521 (average score 1367). Both chips are clustered in a narrow performance band, but the 6274 consistently holds the upper hand.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a common foundation but diverge in one critical architectural generation. Both are built on AMD's 32 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, both pack 2,400 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 315 mm², and both use the AMD Socket G34 platform. The core counts are identical: 16 cores and 16 threads. The cache hierarchy is also largely the same, with 2 MB of L2 per module and 8 MB of L3 per die on both parts. The Opteron 6274 lists its L1 cache as 768 KB (shared), while the Opteron 6376 lists 768 KB without the shared designation, though the practical difference appears negligible given the benchmark results.

The defining difference is the architecture itself. The Opteron 6274 uses Bulldozer, codenamed Interlagos, while the Opteron 6376 moves to Piledriver, codenamed Abu Dhabi. This is a same-node refinement rather than a full redesign. Piledriver was AMD's second-generation modular architecture, intended to improve instruction scheduling and power efficiency over the original Bulldozer design. The clock speeds reflect this refinement: the Opteron 6376 has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Opteron 6274 runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. The newer part clocks higher on both ends, yet it still loses every benchmark. That inversion is notable: the 6376's higher clocks do not translate into better Cinebench scores.

The memory subsystem also differs. Both support DDR3 with quad-channel memory buses, but the Opteron 6376 lists a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s versus the Opteron 6274's 51.2 GB/s. The 6376 has a 16.6% bandwidth advantage on paper, yet the benchmark results show the 6274 winning by roughly 1.3% across the board. The rest of the feature set is identical: both use PCIe Gen 2, both support ECC memory, neither has integrated graphics, and both are unlocked multipliers. The launch dates are separated by roughly a year, with the Opteron 6274 released in November 2011 and the Opteron 6376 in November 2012. Both are now end-of-life server parts.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Opteron 6274 wins in every measured workload category. In multi-threaded rendering tasks like Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core, the 6274 maintains a 1.3% lead over the 6376. In single-threaded workloads across the same three Cinebench versions, the 6274 leads by margins of 1.3% to 1.5%. There is no benchmark in the database where the Opteron 6376 comes out ahead. That includes the newer Cinebench R23 suite, which typically favors architectural refinements, but here the older Bulldozer part still outperforms Piledriver by a narrow but consistent margin.

For workloads that stress the memory controller, the 6376's higher theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s might suggest an advantage, but the Cinebench suite does not test memory bandwidth directly. The recorded data shows no such win for the 6376. If a workload is sensitive to raw core count and cache topology, both chips offer identical 16-core, 16-thread configurations with the same L2 and L3 capacities, so neither gains a structural edge there. The practical takeaway from the database is that the 6274 is the stronger part in every benchmark that was recorded, even if the margin is small enough to be within run-to-run variance in some testing environments.

The use-case split, therefore, is not about one chip winning some tasks and the other winning others. It is about the magnitude of the 6274's advantage. For single-threaded legacy applications, the 6274's 1.5% lead in R15 single-core is the largest recorded gap. For heavily threaded workloads, the margin holds steady at 1.3%. The 6376 does offer higher clock speeds on paper, which might appeal to users who prioritize burst performance, but the benchmark data does not support that expectation. The 6274 is the safer choice across the board.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The AMD Opteron 6274 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 483 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 2014 in R20 multi-core, and 4796 in R23 multi-core, versus the Opteron 6376's 477, 1989, and 4736 respectively. Each win is a 1.3% margin.

Q: Does the Opteron 6376's higher clock speed help it in single-core tests?

A: No. Despite a base clock of 2.30 GHz and boost clock of 3.20 GHz, the 6376 loses all three single-core tests. The 6274 leads with 68 versus 67 in R15 single-core, 284 versus 280 in R20 single-core, and 677 versus 668 in R23 single-core.

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

A: The Opteron 6274 has an average benchmark score of 1387, placing it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i3-9100TE (1386) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Opteron 6366 HE (1379). The Opteron 6376 averages 1370, exactly tied with the Intel Core i7-2600 and 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2.

Q: What are the main architectural differences between the two?

A: The Opteron 6274 uses the Bulldozer architecture (Interlagos), while the Opteron 6376 uses Piledriver (Abu Dhabi). Both are 32 nm parts from GlobalFoundries with 2,400 million transistors, dual 315 mm² dies, and identical 16-core/16-thread configurations. The 6376 has higher clocks and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Opteron 6376 wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head data, no. The Opteron 6274 wins all six benchmarks. The 6376's closest result is a 1.3% deficit in every multi-core test and the R23 single-core test.

Q: Which processor has a higher benchmark percentile?

A: The Opteron 6274 sits at the 37th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Opteron 6376 sits at the 36th. The 6274 also has a higher average benchmark score: 1387 versus 1370.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear verdict: choose the AMD Opteron 6274. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, posts a higher average score (1387 versus 1370), and occupies a higher percentile ranking (37th versus 36th). The margins are small, typically 1.3%, but they are uniform across all six tests and both single-core and multi-core workloads. The Opteron 6376 offers higher clock speeds and greater memory bandwidth on paper, but those advantages do not materialize in the recorded Cinebench results. In fact, the 6376's higher base and boost clocks appear to be counterproductive in these tests, as the 6274 wins despite running at 2.20 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost versus 2.30 GHz and 3.20 GHz.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life server parts, the 6274 is the defensible pick. It is not a dramatic victory, but it is a consistent one. The 6376's only potential appeal is its higher memory bandwidth specification, which might matter in workloads that the Cinebench suite does not cover. But the database records no such advantage. The Opteron 6274 is the better performer in every measured category, and the verdict follows the data without qualification.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Opteron 6274 | AMD Opteron 6376 |

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

| Architecture | Bulldozer | Piledriver |

| Codename | Interlagos | Abu Dhabi |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| Release Date | November 2011 | November 2012 |

| Launch MSRP | $639 | $703 |

| L1 Cache | 768 KB (shared) | 768 KB |

| Part Number | OS6274WKTGGGU | OS6376WKTGGHK |

| Average Benchmark Score | 1387 | 1370 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 37% | 36% |

All other recorded specifications are identical: 16 cores, 16 threads, 115 W TDP, AMD Socket G34, 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 support, quad-channel memory bus, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 2, no integrated graphics, server/workstation market segment, end-of-life production status, and locked multipliers.