AMD Opteron 6344 vs Intel Xeon E3-1515M v5 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1515M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron offers triple the physical core count and 50% more threads than the Xeon.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The Opteron 6344 wins every single-core test, but by narrow margins. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Opteron scores 73 versus 71 for the Xeon, a 2.8% lead. In R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 305 versus 298, a 2.3% lead, and in R23 single-core, it scores 728 versus 711, a 2.4% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 has an average benchmark score of 1492, while the Intel Xeon E3-1515M v5 has an average score of 1456. Both sit at the 38th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory. The Opteron 6344 uses DDR3 memory with a quad-channel bus, while the Xeon E3-1515M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with a dual-channel bus.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E3-1515M v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the AMD Opteron 6344 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What are the release dates for these two processors?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 was released on November 4, 2012, while the Intel Xeon E3-1515M v5 was released on January 23, 2016. Both are now end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Opteron 6344 and the Intel Xeon E3-1515M v5 come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Opteron uses AMD's Piledriver architecture with the Abu Dhabi codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Xeon uses Intel's Skylake architecture with the Skylake-H codename, built on a 14 nm process at Intel's own fabs.

The transistor counts are nearly identical: 2,400 million for the Opteron and 2,300 million for the Xeon. However, the die sizes tell a different story. The Opteron uses a dual-die design with two 315 mm² dies, totaling 630 mm², while the Xeon uses a single 171 mm² die. This means the Xeon packs a similar transistor count into a much smaller area, reflecting the more advanced 14 nm process.

Cache organization differs significantly. The Opteron has 576 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache per module, and 8 MB of L3 cache per die. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. While both have 8 MB of L3, the Xeon's shared design is more efficient for its 4 cores, whereas the Opteron's per-die L3 serves 6 cores per die.

Memory support shows a clear generational gap. The Opteron supports only DDR3 with a quad-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. Despite having fewer channels, the Xeon's support for DDR4 offers more modern memory technology.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The Opteron uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Xeon higher bandwidth for connected devices. The Xeon also includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, which the Opteron completely lacks.

The sockets are incompatible: the Opteron uses AMD Socket G34, while the Xeon uses Intel BGA 1440, meaning the Xeon is soldered to the board. The Opteron has a 115 W TDP, while the Xeon has a 45 W TDP, reflecting the Xeon's much lower power envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a consistent but modest advantage for the AMD Opteron 6344 across all six Cinebench tests. The Opteron wins every single test, but the margins are tight, ranging from 2.3% to 2.8%.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Opteron scores 519 against the Xeon's 507, a 2.4% lead. In R15 single-core, the Opteron scores 73 against 71, a 2.8% lead, which is the largest margin in the entire comparison. This is surprising given the Xeon's newer architecture and higher clock speeds.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron maintains its edge: 2166 versus 2115 in multicore, a 2.4% lead, and 305 versus 298 in single-core, a 2.3% lead. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23, where the Opteron scores 5158 versus 5036 in multicore (2.4% lead) and 728 versus 711 in single-core (2.4% lead).

The consistency of these results is remarkable. Across all six tests, the Opteron's advantage stays within a narrow band of 2.3% to 2.8%, never exceeding 3% and never falling below 2%. This suggests a fundamental performance parity between the two chips, with the Opteron's higher core count and thread count providing a slight edge even in single-threaded workloads.

The Opteron's 12 cores versus the Xeon's 4 cores should theoretically give it a massive multicore advantage, yet the Xeon's newer Skylake architecture and higher clock speeds (2.80 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost versus 2.60 GHz base, 3.20 GHz boost) nearly close the gap. The Xeon's 8 threads also help it compete against the Opteron's 12 threads, with Intel's simultaneous multithreading likely adding significant performance.

The wins are decisive in the sense that the Opteron takes all six benchmarks, but the practical difference is small. A 2.4% multicore lead in R23 translates to roughly 122 points, which is within the noise of many real-world workloads. Still, the data shows the Opteron as the consistent winner.

The Verdict

The data clearly shows the AMD Opteron 6344 winning all six head-to-head benchmarks, but the margins are slim enough that the choice between these two processors depends heavily on context. The Opteron's 12 cores and 12 threads give it a structural advantage in heavily threaded workloads, while the Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads benefit from a newer architecture, higher clock speeds, and much lower power consumption.

For server and workstation workloads that scale with core count, the Opteron's 12 physical cores provide a solid foundation, and the benchmark results confirm it edges out the Xeon in every Cinebench test. The Opteron also offers quad-channel DDR3 memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, which is nearly double the Xeon's dual-channel 34.1 GB/s. This could matter in memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications.

However, the Xeon E3-1515M v5 is not far behind. Its 2.3% to 2.8% deficit in benchmarks is modest, and it brings significant advantages in platform features. The 45 W TDP versus 115 W makes a huge difference in power-constrained environments. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory, PCIe Gen 3, and includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, which the Opteron lacks entirely.

The average benchmark scores put the Opteron at 1492 and the Xeon at 1456, with both at the 38th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Opteron include the Intel Core i5-4590S (1493, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i7-3770S (1498, -0.4% delta). The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200GE (1461, -0.3% delta) and the Intel Core i3-7350K (1462, -0.4% delta). These comparisons show that neither chip is a standout in the broader CPU landscape.

The verdict depends on the use case. If raw multithreaded performance and memory bandwidth are the priorities, the Opteron is the winner. If power efficiency, modern platform features, and integrated graphics matter more, the Xeon is the better fit despite its benchmark deficit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Opteron 6344 | Intel Xeon E3-1515M v5 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 4 |

| Threads | 12 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 115 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket G34 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Piledriver | Skylake |

| Codename | Abu Dhabi | Skylake-H |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 2,400 million | 2,300 million |

| Die Size | 2x 315 mm² | 171 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 34.1 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Pro Graphics P580 |

| Release Date | 2012-11-04 | 2016-01-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $415 | $489 |

| Part Number | OS6344WKTCGHK | SR2QT |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6344 wins in all six Cinebench benchmarks, so on raw performance metrics it has the clear edge. The largest win is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads by 2.8% (73 versus 71). The smallest win is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it leads by 2.3% (305 versus 298). The multicore results are consistent at 2.4% across R15, R20, and R23.

The Opteron also wins on memory bandwidth, offering 59.7 GB/s through its quad-channel DDR3 setup compared to the Xeon's 34.1 GB/s through dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4. This nearly doubles the theoretical memory throughput, which can be decisive in workloads that stream large datasets.

The Xeon E3-1515M v5 wins on platform features and efficiency. Its 45 W TDP is less than half the Opteron's 115 W, making it far more suitable for compact, power-sensitive server deployments. It supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, offering flexibility in system design. Its PCIe Gen 3 connection with 16 lanes provides higher bandwidth for storage and networking devices compared to the Opteron's PCIe Gen 2.

The Xeon includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, which is entirely absent from the Opteron. This makes the Xeon a viable option for systems that need basic display output or GPU-accelerated compute without a discrete graphics card. The Opteron requires a separate GPU for any display or compute tasks.

The Xeon also has a higher base clock (2.80 GHz versus 2.60 GHz) and a higher boost clock (3.70 GHz versus 3.20 GHz), which explains why it comes so close to the Opteron despite having only one-third the cores. The newer 14 nm process and Skylake architecture deliver significantly better per-core efficiency.

For a system builder choosing between these two, the Opteron is the pick for maximum multithreaded throughput and memory bandwidth, while the Xeon is the pick for power efficiency, modern platform features, and integrated graphics. The benchmark data shows the Opteron as the performance winner, but the Xeon's advantages outside of Cinebench cannot be ignored.