AMD Opteron 6276 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron offers four times the physical core count.

Q: How do the base clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 starts at 2.30 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 begins at 2.10 GHz. Both processors reach the same boost clock of 3.20 GHz.

Q: Which chip has the higher power draw?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 has a TDP of 115 W, far exceeding the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5's 25 W TDP. This makes the Intel part dramatically more power-efficient on paper.

Q: What memory configurations do they support?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Opteron 6276 supports only DDR3 but uses a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor wins in the recorded Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its margins range from 2.6% to 3.2% across single-core and multi-core tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 has an average benchmark score of 1609, while the AMD Opteron 6276 scores 1560. Both sit at the 39th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by four years of silicon evolution. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 uses the Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process node, fabricated by Intel with 1,750 million transistors on a 122 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 6276 employs the Bulldozer architecture on GlobalFoundries' 32 nm process, packing 2,400 million transistors across two 315 mm² dies.

The cache hierarchies diverge sharply. Intel allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 8 MB L3. AMD's design uses 768 KB of L1 total, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron's dual-die configuration means each die carries its own L3 slice, whereas Intel's monolithic die shares a single 8 MB pool across all four cores.

Socket compatibility separates them completely. The Intel part mounts in Socket 1151, while the AMD chip requires Socket G34. This alone dictates platform choice. PCIe support also differs: Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while AMD offers only Gen 2 connectivity.

Memory architecture reflects their respective eras. Intel supports both DDR3 and DDR4 through a dual-channel controller, delivering 34.1 GB/s. AMD's quad-channel DDR3-only controller achieves 51.2 GB/s, a 50% higher theoretical bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, consistent with their server/workstation market segment.

The Intel chip integrates a newer process node, enabling its 25 W TDP. The AMD part, with 16 cores and older 32 nm technology, requires 115 W. Both are end-of-life products, but the Intel Xeon launched on 2015-10-18, while the Opteron arrived on 2011-11-13.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. This is a clean sweep: six wins, zero losses. The margins are small but consistent, ranging from 2.6% to 3.2% across all tests.

For single-threaded workloads, the Intel chip's Skylake architecture provides a decisive advantage in instructions per clock. Its 2.6% to 3.2% single-core lead over the Opteron, despite a lower base clock, indicates superior per-core efficiency. The 14 nm process and modern microarchitecture extract more work from each clock cycle.

In multi-threaded scenarios, the Opteron's 16 cores should theoretically overwhelm Intel's 4 cores, yet the data shows Intel still wins by 3.1% in every multi-core test. This is a remarkable outcome: a 4-core, 8-thread chip outperforming a 16-core part in parallel workloads. The Bulldozer architecture's shared floating-point units and module-based design evidently hamper its scaling.

The Intel processor also wins decisively on power efficiency. With a 25 W TDP versus 115 W, the Xeon delivers comparable or better performance at less than a quarter of the power envelope. For dense server deployments or environments with strict thermal limits, this is the only rational choice.

The AMD Opteron 6276 finds no benchmark victories in this comparison. Its advantages lie outside the recorded Cinebench results: quad-channel memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s and a 16-core layout that might benefit workloads not represented here. The database's measurements, however, show no scenario where it outperforms the Intel part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 | AMD Opteron 6276 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 25 W | 115 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | AMD Socket G34 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Bulldozer |

| Process node | 14 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | 1,750 million | 2,400 million |

| Die size | 122 mm² | 2x 315 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 768 KB |

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

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

| Memory support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Release date | 2015-10-18 | 2011-11-13 |

| Launch MSRP | $278 | $788 |

The table highlights a stark contrast in resource allocation. AMD dedicates more transistors to more cores and a wider memory path, while Intel concentrates on a smaller, more efficient core design. The Opteron's launch MSRP of $788 was nearly three times the Xeon's $278, though both are now end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent pattern across all six Cinebench tests. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins every comparison, though the margins reveal the competitive dynamics.

In Cinebench R15, the Intel chip scores 560 in multi-core versus the Opteron's 543, a 3.1% lead. The single-core test shows 78 against 76, a 2.6% margin, the narrowest of the entire set. This suggests the Opteron's per-thread performance is closer than the multi-core gap might imply.

Cinebench R20 repeats the multi-core result: Intel scores 2336, AMD scores 2265, again a 3.1% difference. The single-core test yields 329 versus 319, also a 3.1% margin. The consistency across these tests indicates a fixed architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

Cinebench R23 follows the same trajectory. Multi-core shows Intel at 5564 and AMD at 5395, a 3.1% delta. Single-core records Intel at 785 and AMD at 761, a 3.2% margin, the largest in the dataset. This slightly wider single-core gap in the newest test iteration hints that the Intel architecture's per-core efficiency advantage may be growing relative to the aging Bulldozer design.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this narrative. Intel's 1609 average sits close to its nearest rivals: the Intel Core i7-10610U at 1611 (0.1% faster) and the Intel Core i7-970 at 1613 (0.2% faster). The AMD Opteron's 1560 average places it near the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X at 1562 (0.1% faster) and the AMD FX-8350 at 1557 (0.2% slower).

Both processors land at the 39th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating they occupy a similar overall performance tier despite their architectural differences. The Intel chip achieves this with fewer cores and lower power, while the Opteron relies on raw core count to stay competitive.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice for most scenarios. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 outperforms the AMD Opteron 6276 in every recorded benchmark, achieves a higher average score, and does so with a quarter of the power draw. Its 25 W TDP, combined with a modern 14 nm process and Skylake architecture, makes it the superior processor for server and workstation deployments where efficiency matters.

The Opteron's 16 cores and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth are noteworthy on paper, but the benchmark results show these resources fail to translate into performance wins. The Bulldozer architecture's known weaknesses in floating-point and per-thread throughput are evident in the consistent 3.1% deficits across multi-core tests. Even with four times the cores, the Opteron cannot overcome Intel's per-core superiority.

For single-threaded workloads, the choice is unambiguous. The Intel chip leads by 2.6% to 3.2% in every single-core test. For multi-threaded workloads, the Intel chip still leads, albeit by the same narrow margin. No recorded workload favors the AMD part.

The one consideration favoring the Opteron is its memory bandwidth. The quad-channel configuration offers 51.2 GB/s, which could benefit memory-bound applications not captured in the Cinebench suite. However, the database contains no benchmark results showing this advantage materializing in practice.

In summary, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the recommended processor based on the recorded data. It wins every head-to-head test, consumes less power, and offers a more modern platform with DDR4 support and PCIe Gen 3. The AMD Opteron 6276, despite its core count and bandwidth specifications, delivers no measured performance advantage and carries a substantially higher power requirement.