AMD Opteron 6281 vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 takes a clean sweep across every recorded benchmark in this comparison, winning all six head-to-head tests. The margins are narrow in every case, ranging from a 1.8% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core to a 2.3% edge in Cinebench R15 single-core. This consistency suggests the Intel part has a small but uniform performance lead across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The AMD Opteron 6281, despite fielding 16 physical cores against the Intel chip's 4 cores and 8 threads, cannot convert its raw core count into a multi-threaded victory. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Opteron scores 6187 against the Xeon's 6303, a 1.9% deficit. This is a striking result: a processor with four times the core count ends up behind in heavily parallel rendering work.

For single-threaded tasks, the picture is similar. The Opteron's 2.50 GHz base clock and 3.20 GHz boost clock trail the Xeon's 3.70 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, and the benchmark data reflects that gap. The Xeon wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 2.3% and Cinebench R23 single-core by 1.8%.

Where each chip wins is therefore about workload type rather than core count. The Xeon E5-1630 v3 wins everywhere, but its largest margin comes in a single-threaded test. The Opteron's best showing relative to the Intel part is in multi-threaded Cinebench R23, where the delta shrinks to 1.9% alongside the other multi-core tests, suggesting its many cores keep it competitive in scaling workloads even if they never push it over the top.

The overall percentile ranking tells a similar story. Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier despite very different architectures and release timelines.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies entirely. The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process fabricated by Intel. It packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 6281 uses the Bulldozer architecture, codenamed Interlagos, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 2,400 million transistors spread across two 315 mm² dies.

Cache layouts diverge sharply. The Xeon carries 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a shared 10 MB L3 cache. The Opteron has 768 KB of total L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. These differences reflect Bulldozer's module-based design, where pairs of cores share resources, versus Haswell's conventional per-core cache arrangement.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Xeon supports DDR4 over a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Opteron uses DDR3 on a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which suits their server and workstation positioning. PCI Express connectivity differs as well: the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the Opteron is limited to Gen 2.

The Xeon is a 4-core, 8-thread part with Hyper-Threading, boosting its thread count to double its core count. The Opteron has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no SMT equivalent. Clock speeds favor Intel heavily: 3.70 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost versus 2.50 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The Xeon has a 140 W TDP, slightly higher than the Opteron's 130 W, which is notable given the Opteron runs four times the cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers three generations of Cinebench, each with multi-core and single-core runs. Across all six tests, the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 wins, but the margins remain tight.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 635 against the Opteron's 623, a 1.9% lead. The single-core run shows the Xeon at 89 versus 87, a 2.3% advantage, the largest margin in the entire comparison.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core results show the Xeon at 2647 and the Opteron at 2598, another 1.9% gap. Single-core gives the Xeon 373 against 366, also a 1.9% edge.

Cinebench R23 continues the trend. The Xeon posts 6303 in multi-core against 6187 for the Opteron, a 1.9% difference. Single-core results show 889 for the Xeon and 873 for the Opteron, a 1.8% margin, the narrowest of the six tests.

The consistency of these deltas is remarkable. Five of six tests land at exactly 1.9%, with one at 2.3% and one at 1.8%. This suggests the performance relationship between the two chips is stable across varying workload intensities and Cinebench versions, rather than being sensitive to specific test conditions.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce the same conclusion. The Xeon averages 1823 points across its benchmark suite, while the Opteron averages 1789. That is a gap of roughly 1.9%, mirroring the head-to-head deltas. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4790S at 1827 (a 0.2% difference), the Intel Xeon D-1537 at 1830 (0.4% ahead), and the Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 at 1830 (0.4% ahead). The Opteron's closest competitors include the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE at 1787 (0.1% behind the Opteron) and the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 at 1802 (0.7% ahead of the Opteron).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. Core and thread counts diverge dramatically: the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Opteron has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Clock speeds favor Intel. The Xeon runs at 3.70 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The Opteron runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost.

Process technology separates them by a full node generation. The Xeon uses 22 nm from Intel, while the Opteron uses 32 nm from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are close: 2,600 million for the Xeon versus 2,400 million for the Opteron. Die size differs in configuration: the Xeon is a single 356 mm² die, while the Opteron uses two 315 mm² dies.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Xeon provides 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core with 10 MB shared L3. The Opteron provides 768 KB total L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die.

Memory support splits by generation. The Xeon uses DDR4 with a quad-channel bus delivering 68.3 GB/s. The Opteron uses DDR3 with a quad-channel bus delivering 51.2 GB/s. Both support ECC.

PCIe capability differs: the Xeon supports Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes, while the Opteron supports Gen 2. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 2011-3 for the Xeon, AMD Socket G34 for the Opteron.

TDP ratings are close: 140 W for the Xeon, 130 W for the Opteron. The Xeon launched on September 7, 2014, while the Opteron launched earlier on April 30, 2012. The Opteron has a recorded launch MSRP of $988, which can be stated once as its launch MSRP. The Xeon has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both target the server and workstation market segment. Both are end-of-life products now.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core modes.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Xeon leads by 1.9% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (635 vs 623), 1.9% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (2647 vs 2598), and 1.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (6303 vs 6187).

Q: Does the AMD Opteron 6281's 16-core design give it an advantage in threaded workloads?

A: No. Despite having 16 cores against the Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads, the Opteron trails in every multi-threaded benchmark, with a 1.9% deficit in all three multi-core Cinebench tests.

Q: What memory technologies do these processors support?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 supports DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Opteron 6281 supports DDR3 on a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: What are the clock speed specifications for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 has a 3.70 GHz base clock and a 3.80 GHz boost clock. The AMD Opteron 6281 has a 2.50 GHz base clock and a 3.20 GHz boost clock.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall database percentile ranking?

A: Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same overall performance tier despite their architectural differences.