CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 and the AMD Opteron 6281 are two server-class processors from different eras, yet their benchmark scores place them in a near-identical performance tier. The data shows a consistent, albeit narrow, advantage for the Intel part across every workload tested, despite the Opteron offering four times the physical cores. This head-to-head analysis reveals that the architectural gap between a modern 14nm Broadwell design and a legacy 32nm Bulldozer design is so vast that core count alone cannot bridge the divide.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably close, with the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 winning all six comparisons. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the Intel chip scores 627 against the Opteron's 623, a margin of just 0.6%. This pattern repeats in the single-core variant, where the Xeon posts 88 points versus 87 for the AMD part, a 1.1% lead. The story does not change in newer workloads; the Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a 2616 to 2598 result in favor of Intel, a 0.7% difference, while the single-core result is 369 to 366, an 0.8% edge.

The most significant spread appears in the Cinebench R23 tests. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 achieves a multicore score of 6230, while the Opteron 6281 reaches 6187, keeping the Intel advantage at 0.7%. In the single-core R23 test, the scores are 879 and 873 respectively, again a 0.7% lead for Intel. While no single benchmark shows a dramatic victory, the consistency of the win is telling. The Intel processor does not just edge ahead in one synthetic test; it maintains its lead across three generations of the Cinebench suite, indicating that its architectural efficiency provides a stable, repeatable performance advantage over the AMD part.

When placed in the broader context of their respective rival pools, both processors are statistical twins. The Opteron 6281's average benchmark score is 1789, with the Xeon E5-1620 v4 sitting just 0.7% higher. Conversely, from the Intel chip's perspective, the Opteron is a rival with a -0.7% delta. These deltas confirm that the two are effectively in the same performance class, with the Xeon having a slight but consistent edge. The Intel part's average score of 1802 places it 0.2% behind the Intel Core i3-9100, while the AMD Opteron's score of 1789 puts it just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE. Both chips land at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs, reinforcing their status as mid-pack performers despite their different architectures and core counts.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins in every category. It is faster in all six Cinebench tests, covering both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The performance advantage, while narrow, is universal. For any workload that relies on raw Cinebench performance, the data unambiguously points to the Intel part. The single-core wins, however small, are particularly significant for tasks that cannot utilize multiple cores effectively, as they suggest a more responsive and agile processor for lightly threaded applications.

The AMD Opteron 6281 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide no advantage in these specific tests, as the Intel part's 4 cores and 8 threads manage to outperform it. The Opteron's only claim to relevance in this matchup is that it comes remarkably close, never falling more than 1.1% behind. For workloads not covered by Cinebench, the Opteron's design might offer different characteristics, but within the scope of the data provided, it has no winning use case. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 is simply the faster processor in every measured scenario.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 faster than the AMD Opteron 6281 in multi-core tasks?

A: Yes. The Intel chip wins the Cinebench R15 multicore test with a score of 627 versus 623, and the R20 multicore test with 2616 versus 2598. It also takes the R23 multicore test at 6230 versus 6187.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap between the two?

A: The gap is very small. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 88 to the Opteron's 87, a 1.1% lead. In R20 single-core, it is 369 to 366, and in R23 single-core, it is 879 to 873, both representing a 0.7% advantage.

Q: Do the extra cores in the AMD Opteron 6281 help it win any benchmarks?

A: No. Despite having 16 cores and 16 threads to the Intel's 4 cores and 8 threads, the Opteron 6281 loses all six head-to-head benchmarks to the Xeon E5-1620 v4.

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

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has an average score of 1802, which is 0.2% behind the Intel Core i3-9100. The Opteron 6281's average score of 1789 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for both CPUs?

A: Both the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 and the AMD Opteron 6281 are ranked at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 has a higher average benchmark score of 1802, compared to the AMD Opteron 6281's 1789.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is core count. The AMD Opteron 6281 offers 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 provides only 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks also differ significantly, with the Intel part running at 3.50 GHz versus the Opteron's 2.50 GHz. Boost clocks follow suit, with the Xeon reaching 3.80 GHz and the Opteron topping out at 3.20 GHz.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Intel Xeon uses DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and a theoretical bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The AMD Opteron relies on older DDR3 memory, also on a quad-channel bus, but with a lower bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The PCIe support also differs: the Xeon features Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the Opteron is limited to Gen 2. Both processors support ECC memory and have locked multipliers. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has a launch MSRP of $294, while the Opteron 6281 carries a launch MSRP of $988.

Architecture Differences

These two CPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-EP codename, using a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry. It packs 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 10 MB L3 cache.

The AMD Opteron 6281 is based on the Bulldozer architecture, with the codename Interlagos, manufactured on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,400 million transistors spread across two dies, each measuring 315 mm². Its cache configuration is notably different: 768 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron's design uses a module-based approach, where pairs of cores share resources, whereas the Xeon uses traditional full cores. The Intel part is a desktop segment processor, while the Opteron is aimed at the server and workstation market. The Xeon was released in 2016, while the Opteron launched in 2012, reflecting a four-year gap in design and manufacturing technology.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, from the older Cinebench R15 to the current R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. The margins are narrow, but they are consistent. A builder should choose the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 for any workload where Cinebench performance is a proxy for real-world speed, as it delivers a small but measurable advantage in every scenario.

The AMD Opteron 6281 is not without merit. It is a 16-core part that nearly matches a much newer, more efficient 4-core design. Its performance is close enough that in applications not covered by these benchmarks, the outcome could potentially differ. However, based strictly on the available data, it never comes out ahead. The Opteron is best suited for a legacy system where its socket, DDR3 memory support, and high core count are already integrated into an existing infrastructure. For a new build, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 offers superior performance per core, superior memory bandwidth, and a more modern platform, making it the logical choice from a purely performance standpoint.