AMD Opteron 6274 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

# Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 vs AMD Opteron 6274

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 and AMD Opteron 6274 present a fascinating generational clash: a 4-core, 8-thread Haswell part from 2014 facing a 16-core, 16-thread Bulldozer server chip from 2011. Despite the Opteron’s fourfold core advantage, the benchmark data shows these two processors landing within a hair of each other across every Cinebench test. The Xeon wins all six head-to-head comparisons, yet the largest margin is a mere 0.7%. This near-parity, achieved with radically different designs, raises immediate questions about what each chip actually optimizes for—and why the older, wider AMD part still competes at all.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head set. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 486 against the Opteron’s 483, a 0.6% edge. The single-core R15 result is a dead tie at 68 points each, though the Xeon is credited with the win due to a 0% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 2027 multicore versus 2014 for the Opteron (0.6% ahead), and 286 single-core versus 284 (0.7% ahead). In Cinebench R23, the pattern continues: 4827 against 4796 multicore (0.6% lead) and 681 against 677 single-core (0.6% lead).

The Opteron 6274, despite losing all six contests, demonstrates its strength in raw throughput potential. With 16 cores and 16 threads, it matches the Xeon’s 4-core/8-thread part within 1% in every multi-threaded workload. The data suggests the Opteron’s advantage would likely emerge in heavily parallel, memory-bandwidth-hungry server tasks—its quad-channel DDR3 configuration delivers 51.2 GB/s versus the Xeon’s dual-channel 25.6 GB/s. However, the Cinebench results show no workload where the Opteron actually pulls ahead; the Xeon’s superior per-core efficiency (evident in single-core tests) compensates for the core deficit even in multicore rendering.

The Xeon’s wins are consistent but narrow. This points to a design where lower power (25W TDP versus 115W) and modern architecture (Haswell on 22nm versus Bulldozer on 32nm) yield similar application performance. The Opteron’s closest call is in R15 single-core, where both score 68 exactly—a statistical tie that underscores how Bulldozer’s shared-module design still delivered competitive single-thread results at similar clock speeds (2.20 GHz base, 3.10 GHz boost for AMD; 2.00 GHz base, 3.00 GHz boost for Intel).

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is the clear pick for anyone running Cinebench-style workloads—it wins all six tests, albeit by margins under 1%. Its average benchmark score of 1396 places it in the 37th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals (Intel Core i5-6500TE at 1399, Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 at 1401) are within 0.4% of its score. The Opteron 6274 sits at 1387 average, also in the 37th percentile, with its closest competitor being the Intel Core i3-9100TE at 1386 (0.1% behind).

For single-threaded applications, the Xeon’s advantage is real but tiny: 0.7% in R20 single-core and 0.6% in R23 single-core. This suggests that any task relying on per-core performance—legacy software, lightly threaded databases, or interactive workloads—will see essentially identical results from either chip. The Opteron’s 16 threads offer no benefit in these scenarios.

For multi-threaded rendering, the Opteron’s 16 cores should theoretically crush the Xeon’s 8 threads, yet the data shows the opposite. The Xeon leads by 0.6% in R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. This implies that Bulldozer’s module-based design (with shared floating-point units) did not scale efficiently in Cinebench, and that the Opteron’s higher TDP (115W versus 25W) bought almost no performance advantage. The Xeon’s 4 cores on a 22nm process with 1,400 million transistors deliver more work per watt than the Opteron’s 2,400 million transistors on 32nm.

The verdict hinges on context beyond raw scores. The Xeon launches at $278 MSRP; the Opteron at $639. The Xeon uses a modern Intel Socket 1150 with PCIe Gen 3 (16 lanes), while the Opteron uses AMD Socket G34 with PCIe Gen 2. The Xeon supports dual-channel memory; the Opteron supports quad-channel. For new builds, the Xeon is the logical choice given its benchmark wins, newer architecture, and lower power draw. For legacy systems already on G34, the Opteron remains serviceable but offers no performance justification over the Xeon based on these numbers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most decisive result is Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon wins 286 to 284—a 0.7% margin, the largest of any test. This may seem trivial, but it highlights the Xeon’s architectural efficiency: a 2.00 GHz base clock outperforms the Opteron’s 2.20 GHz base in a single-threaded test. The Xeon’s 3.00 GHz boost versus the Opteron’s 3.10 GHz boost also fails to explain the win, pointing to Haswell’s superior instruction per clock (IPC) over Bulldozer.

In multicore tests, the margins are consistent at 0.6%: R15 (486 vs 483), R20 (2027 vs 2014), and R23 (4827 vs 4796). The Opteron’s 16 cores produce only 3 points less than the Xeon’s 4 cores in R15, a gap that narrows to 13 points in R20 and 31 points in R23. This suggests that as the workload scales from R15 to R23, the Opteron falls slightly further behind—perhaps due to memory bandwidth contention or thread scheduling overhead on its 16 threads.

The single-core R15 test is a perfect tie at 68 points each. This is the only benchmark where the Opteron matches the Xeon exactly, and it reinforces that Bulldozer’s single-thread performance at similar clock speeds was competitive in 2011-era workloads. Yet in the newer R20 and R23 single-core tests, the Xeon edges ahead by 2-4 points, indicating that newer Cinebench versions may penalize the older architecture more.

The Opteron’s best relative performance is in R15 multicore, where it trails by just 0.6%. Its worst is R20 single-core at 0.7% behind. Across all tests, the average delta is approximately 0.5%, which is within typical run-to-run variance for Cinebench. This means that in practice, a user might not notice any difference between these two CPUs in real-world applications—despite the Opteron using 4.6 times the power (115W TDP vs 25W).

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6274 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Does the Opteron's core advantage translate to higher Cinebench scores?

A: No. The Xeon wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with multicore margins of 0.6% in R15, R20, and R23. The Opteron’s 16 cores do not outperform the Xeon’s 4 cores in any test.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two CPUs?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon scores 286 versus the Opteron’s 284—a 0.7% difference. The smallest gap is in R15 single-core, a tie at 68 points each.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 1396, while the Opteron scores 1387. Both sit in the 37th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Opteron supports quad-channel DDR3 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, double the Xeon’s dual-channel 25.6 GB/s.

Q: Were both CPUs released in the same year?

A: No. The AMD Opteron 6274 was released on November 13, 2011, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 came out on May 10, 2014.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is built on the Haswell architecture (codename Haswell-WS) using a 22nm process at Intel’s foundry. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 160 mm² die. The cache hierarchy is per-core: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. It supports dual-channel DDR3 memory with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

The AMD Opteron 6274 uses the Bulldozer architecture (codename Interlagos) on a 32nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,400 million transistors across two dies, each measuring 315 mm²—a combined die size of 630 mm². Its cache is organized differently: 768 KB of shared L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die (totaling 16 MB across both dies). It supports quad-channel DDR3 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 2.

The transistor counts reveal the design philosophies: Intel’s 4-core Haswell uses 1,400 million transistors, while AMD’s 16-core Bulldozer uses 2,400 million. The Opteron’s higher transistor count buys more cores and memory channels but not more performance in Cinebench. The process node difference (22nm vs 32nm) explains the TDP gap: 25W for the Xeon versus 115W for the Opteron. Both CPUs support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 | AMD Opteron 6274 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 25W | 115W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket G34 |

| Process node | 22nm | 32nm |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 2,400 million |

| Die size | 160 mm² | 2x 315 mm² |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| PCIe version | Gen 3, 16 lanes | Gen 2 |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 768 KB shared |

| L2 cache | 256 KB per core | 2 MB per module |

| L3 cache | 8 MB shared | 8 MB per die |

| Launch MSRP | $278 | $639 |

| Release date | May 10, 2014 | November 13, 2011 |