AMD Opteron 6276 vs Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6276 and Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 are both end-of-life server processors, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. Across every benchmark in this comparison, the AMD Opteron 6276 wins, but by margins so narrow that the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 remains highly competitive, especially given its drastically lower power footprint. The data shows a consistent, albeit slim, victory for the AMD part across all six Cinebench tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Opteron 6276 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the victory margin is remarkably consistent and narrow. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the AMD Opteron 6276 scores 543 against the Xeon E5-1428L v2's 535, a delta of 1.5%. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern, with the AMD part at 76 and the Intel part at 75, a 1.3% difference.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the AMD Opteron 6276 again takes the lead. Its multi-core score of 2265 eclipses the Intel Xeon's 2232 by 1.5%. In single-core, the AMD chip scores 319 versus 315 for the Intel, another 1.3% margin. The pattern persists in the most demanding test, Cinebench R23, where the AMD Opteron 6276 scores 5395 in multi-core and 761 in single-core, against 5316 and 750 for the Intel part respectively, with deltas of 1.5% in both.

These results are striking for several reasons. The AMD Opteron 6276 achieves these wins with 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 operates with only 6 cores and 12 threads. The per-core performance advantage of the Intel architecture is not enough to overcome the raw core count advantage of the AMD chip, but it comes surprisingly close. The data reveals that the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2, despite having 10 fewer cores, trails by only a single percentage point in each test. This indicates that Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture delivers far superior per-thread performance, nearly compensating for the massive core deficit.

The consistency of the margins is also notable. The multi-core delta is 1.5% across all three Cinebench versions, while the single-core delta is 1.3% for R15 and R20, and 1.5% for R23. This uniformity suggests the performance relationship between the two CPUs is stable across different workload intensities and render complexities. Benchmark results indicate that the AMD Opteron 6276 holds a decisive, if narrow, advantage in every scenario measured.

The Verdict

The data provides a clear, if nuanced, verdict. The AMD Opteron 6276 is the outright performance winner, taking all six benchmarks in this head-to-head comparison. For workloads that can fully utilize its 16 threads, it will consistently outperform the Xeon E5-1428L v2, albeit by approximately 1.5% in multi-core and 1.3% in single-core tasks. Any user prioritizing maximum raw Cinebench scores should select the AMD Opteron 6276.

However, the Xeon E5-1428L v2 is far from a loss. The benchmark results show that its 6-core, 12-thread design is remarkably efficient, nearly matching the 16-core AMD part. The Intel chip consumes a TDP of only 60 watts, compared to the AMD's 115 watts. This means the Xeon achieves almost the same performance while drawing nearly half the power. In a dense server environment, this efficiency could make it the superior choice, as the data shows only a negligible performance penalty for a massive reduction in thermal and power requirements.

The choice hinges on priorities. If the absolute highest score is the sole metric, the AMD Opteron 6276 is the winner. If performance-per-watt is a primary concern, the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 is the more compelling option, sacrificing only 1.5% of multi-core performance for a 55-watt reduction in TDP. The average benchmark scores reflect this balance: the AMD part has an average score of 1560, while the Intel part sits at 1537. The AMD processor also holds a 39th percentile ranking versus the Xeon's 38th, reinforcing its slight overall edge.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 scores 5395, which is 1.5% higher than the Xeon E5-1428L v2's score of 5316.

Q: Is there any test where the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD Opteron 6276 winning all six benchmark comparisons, with the Xeon E5-1428L v2 recording zero wins.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 has a TDP of 115 watts, while the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 has a TDP of 60 watts.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 has an average benchmark score of 1560, which is higher than the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2's average of 1537.

Q: What are the single-core scores in Cinebench R20?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 scores 319, and the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 scores 315, giving the AMD part a 1.3% advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their fundamental specifications. The AMD Opteron 6276 features 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 offers 6 cores and 12 threads. This core count difference is the most obvious specification gap. The AMD part has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, whereas the Intel chip's base clock is 2.20 GHz and its boost clock is 2.70 GHz.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The AMD Opteron 6276 has a TDP of 115 watts, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 is rated at just 60 watts. The two CPUs also use different sockets: the AMD part requires AMD Socket G34, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1356. Memory support also diverges, with the AMD chip using a Quad-channel memory bus providing 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and the Intel chip using a Triple-channel bus with 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe support differs as well; the AMD Opteron 6276 supports PCIe Gen 2, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 24 lanes.

The launch MSRP for the AMD Opteron 6276 was $788. The Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 had a launch MSRP of $494. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both support ECC memory. The AMD part has a die size of 2x 315 mm² and contains 2,400 million transistors, whereas the Intel part has a die size of 257 mm² and contains 1,860 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

These CPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Opteron 6276 uses the Bulldozer architecture, codenamed Interlagos, and is part of the Opteron 6000 series. It is manufactured on a 32 nm process node at GlobalFoundries. Its cache hierarchy is structured differently, with 768 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache per module, and 8 MB of L3 cache per die.

In contrast, the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 is based on the Ivy Bridge architecture, specifically codenamed Ivy Bridge-EN, and belongs to the Xeon E5 generation. Intel manufactures this chip on a more advanced 22 nm process node. The Intel cache design uses 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a large 15 MB of shared L3 cache. This architectural difference explains the performance scaling; Intel's newer process node and per-core cache design allow it to extract far more performance per core than AMD's Bulldozer design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6276 wins in every benchmark measured, making it the clear choice for raw multi-threaded performance. Its 16-core design provides a definitive advantage in Cinebench workloads, and its higher base and boost clocks contribute to its lead in single-core tests. For any application where a higher Cinebench score is the primary goal, the AMD Opteron 6276 is the superior part.

The Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2, despite losing all benchmarks, wins in the context of efficiency. Its 60-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the AMD's 115 watts, making it the better option for power-constrained environments. The data shows it delivers 98.5% of the AMD part's multi-core performance in R23 (5316 vs 5395) while consuming nearly half the power. This makes the Xeon the logical choice for server deployments where thermal output and energy costs are critical factors, as the performance sacrifice is minimal. The Xeon's support for PCIe Gen 3 also gives it a modern I/O advantage over the AMD chip's PCIe Gen 2, which could be relevant for certain storage or networking workloads.