AMD Opteron 6344 vs Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6344 and Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 occupy very different positions in the server and workstation landscape, yet their benchmark results place them surprisingly close in overall performance. The Opteron 6344 is a twelve-core Piledriver part from the Opteron 6000 series, while the Xeon E3-1505L v5 is a four-core, eight-thread Skylake-H processor. Both are end-of-life products, and both carry a 38th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database. The recorded average benchmark score for the Opteron is 1492, while the Xeon sits at 1446. That difference of roughly 3% in aggregate performance is small enough that real-world workloads could favor either part depending on the task.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison shows a clean sweep for the AMD Opteron 6344 across all six Cinebench tests, but the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 519 against the Xeon's 503, a 3.2% advantage. Single-core in R15 shows the Opteron at 73 versus 71, a 2.8% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result repeats the same 3.2% delta: 2166 for the Opteron, 2099 for the Xeon. Single-core R20 gives the Opteron a 3% edge with 305 points against 296. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core gap again holds at 3.2%, with the Opteron scoring 5158 and the Xeon 4999. Single-core R23 shows the largest relative difference of the entire set, 3.3%, with the Opteron at 728 and the Xeon at 705.

What makes these results notable is the architectural context. The Opteron achieves these wins with twelve physical cores but no simultaneous multithreading, running at a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Xeon counters with four cores and eight threads, base clock of 2.00 GHz and boost of 2.80 GHz. The Opteron's per-core performance is clearly much weaker, yet its core count advantage is enough to edge out the Xeon in every single benchmark, including single-core tests. The data suggests that even in single-threaded Cinebench workloads, the Opteron's higher clock speed of 3.20 GHz boost compensates for the architectural efficiency of the Skylake design. The consistent 3% delta across all tests points to a steady, not workload-dependent, performance relationship.

The Opteron's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i5-4590S with an average score of 1493 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-3770S at 1498 (-0.4%), and the Intel Core i3-8100T at 1500 (-0.5%). The Xeon's nearest rivals are the AMD Opteron 6378 at 1447 (-0.1%), AMD Ryzen 3 2200GE at 1444 (0.1%), and Intel Core i5-7300HQ at 1448 (-0.1%). These reference points show that both processors are competing in the same performance tier as older mainstream desktop parts, not just against each other.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 519 in R15, 2166 in R20, and 5158 in R23, each time beating the Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 by 3.2%.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the Opteron winning all six tests, with zero wins for the Xeon. The Xeon's closest result is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it trails by 2.8%.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare?

A: The Opteron leads in every single-core test, but the margins are small. In R15 it is 73 versus 71, in R20 it is 305 versus 296, and in R23 it is 728 versus 705. The largest gap is 3.3% in R23 single-core.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The Opteron has an average benchmark score of 1492, while the Xeon has 1446. That is a 46-point difference, roughly 3% in favor of the Opteron.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are ranked in the 38th percentile against all CPUs in the database. This places them in a similar overall performance tier despite their very different core counts and architectures.

Q: Does the Xeon's lower power consumption appear in the benchmark data?

A: The benchmark data only covers Cinebench scores. The Xeon's 25 W TDP is much lower than the Opteron's 115 W TDP, but that efficiency advantage is not reflected in the performance measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The Opteron 6344 uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,400 million transistors across a dual-die design with each die measuring 315 mm². The Xeon E3-1505L v5 uses the Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-H, built on Intel's 14 nm process with 2,300 million transistors on a single 122 mm² die. The die size difference is stark: the Opteron uses two large dies totaling 630 mm², while the Xeon uses one small die.

Cache configurations reveal further divergence. The Opteron has 576 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache per module, and 8 MB of L3 cache per die, meaning a total of 16 MB of L3 across both dies. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. For a four-core processor, that gives 256 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 total. The Xeon's shared L3 is half the capacity of the Opteron's combined L3, but it is on a single die with much lower latency characteristics typical of a newer process.

Memory support also differs. The Opteron supports DDR3 memory over a quad-channel bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Opteron's quad-channel setup provides nearly double the peak bandwidth, which is important for multi-threaded server workloads. The Xeon compensates with support for DDR4, which offers higher per-module efficiency, but the total bandwidth figure is still lower.

PCIe connectivity shows another generational gap. The Opteron uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon also includes integrated graphics in the form of HD Graphics P530, whereas the Opteron has no integrated graphics at all. The Opteron's socket is AMD Socket G34, while the Xeon uses Intel BGA 1440, meaning the Xeon is soldered and not upgradeable in the traditional sense.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference: 12 cores and 12 threads for the Opteron versus 4 cores and 8 threads for the Xeon. Clock speeds favor the Opteron with a base of 2.60 GHz and boost of 3.20 GHz, against the Xeon's 2.00 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. The Opteron's TDP is 115 W, while the Xeon is rated at just 25 W, a 90 W difference that has major implications for cooling and system power budgets.

Memory channels differ as well: quad-channel for the Opteron and dual-channel for the Xeon. The memory bandwidth figures are 59.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s. The Opteron supports only DDR3, while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The PCIe generation differs, with Gen 2 on the Opteron and Gen 3 on the Xeon. The Xeon has integrated graphics, the Opteron does not. Process node is 32 nm for the Opteron and 14 nm for the Xeon, though both are manufactured with roughly the same transistor count: 2,400 million versus 2,300 million.

The release dates are separated by nearly three years, with the Opteron launching in November 2012 and the Xeon in October 2015. The launch MSRP for the Opteron was $415, and the Xeon launched at $433. Both processors have unlocked multipliers disabled, and both are marked as end-of-life in production status. The Opteron's part number is OS6344WKTCGHK, while the Xeon's is SR2E0.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward outcome: the AMD Opteron 6344 wins every benchmark in this comparison, but only by margins of roughly 3%. The average benchmark score of 1492 against 1446 confirms this narrow lead. Neither processor dominates the other in a way that would force a clear recommendation for all scenarios. The Opteron's advantage comes from its twelve cores and higher clock speeds, while the Xeon's advantage lies in its much lower power draw and newer architecture.

For workloads that are purely multi-threaded and can use all available cores, the Opteron's 3.2% lead in multi-core Cinebench tests is the deciding factor. For single-threaded tasks, the Opteron also holds the lead, which is surprising given the Xeon's architectural efficiency. The Xeon does not win a single recorded test, but its 25 W TDP makes it far easier to cool and integrate into compact systems. The Opteron's 115 W TDP requires more substantial cooling and power delivery.

The percentile ranking tells a broader story: both are 38th percentile processors, meaning they sit in the lower-middle range of all CPUs in the database. These are not high-end parts by modern standards, but they remain serviceable for specific server and workstation roles. The Xeon's integrated graphics and PCIe Gen 3 support make it more suitable for systems that need those features. The Opteron's quad-channel memory and higher bandwidth make it better for memory-intensive tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6344 wins in raw compute benchmarks across the board. It takes all six Cinebench tests, with the largest single-core margin at 3.3% in R23 and the largest multi-core margin at 3.2% across R15, R20, and R23. It also offers higher memory bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s, which benefits workloads that stream large datasets. Its twelve cores provide more parallel execution capacity for heavily threaded applications.

The Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 wins in efficiency and platform features. Its 25 W TDP is a fraction of the Opteron's 115 W, making it suitable for passive cooling or small form factor systems. It supports DDR4 memory, which is more modern and power-efficient than DDR3. Its PCIe Gen 3 interface doubles the per-lane bandwidth of the Opteron's PCIe Gen 2, which matters for fast NVMe storage and modern GPUs. The integrated HD Graphics P530 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios.

The benchmark data does not show the Xeon winning any performance test, but the database context indicates that both processors are closely matched overall. The Xeon's nearest rival, the AMD Opteron 6378, scores 1447, which is nearly identical to the Xeon's 1446. The Opteron 6344's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-4590S, scores 1493, essentially matching the Opteron's 1492. These reference points suggest that the performance gap between the two processors is smaller than the architectural differences would imply. The Opteron wins the benchmarks, but the Xeon wins on platform efficiency, and the choice depends on whether raw Cinebench scores or system-level power and features take priority.