CPU Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6348 and the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 are two end-of-life server processors that, despite very different designs, land at nearly the same overall performance level. Benchmark data shows the Opteron 6348 holds a narrow aggregate lead, with an average benchmark score of 1930 compared to the Xeon’s 1925, a difference of 0.3%. Both chips sit at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier. The Opteron achieves this with 12 Piledriver cores on a 32 nm process, while the Xeon counters with 4 Haswell cores on 22 nm, making the comparison a study in how core count and architectural efficiency balance out.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron offers triple the core count, though it lacks hyper-threading capability.

Q: Is there a significant difference in their average benchmark scores?

A: The difference is minimal. The Opteron 6348 scores 1930 on average, while the Xeon E3-1231 v3 scores 1925. This 0.3% gap places the Xeon as a near-exact rival, with the Opteron’s lead being statistically negligible.

Q: Which CPU wins in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 942 versus the Xeon’s 842, a 11.9% advantage. This is notable because the Xeon has a higher base and boost clock, yet still trails.

Q: How does their memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Opteron 6348 supports quad-channel DDR3 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Xeon E3-1231 v3 uses dual-channel DDR3, offering 25.6 GB/s. The Opteron’s memory subsystem provides more than double the bandwidth.

Q: What process node is each processor built on?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 uses a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 uses a 22 nm process at Intel. The Xeon’s smaller node contributes to its lower 80 W TDP versus the Opteron’s 115 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Opteron 6348 and the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 support ECC memory, making both suitable for server and workstation environments where data integrity is critical.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The AMD Opteron 6348 is built on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, using a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,400 million transistors across a dual-die design, with each die measuring 315 mm². The cache layout is module-based: 576 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. This structure reflects AMD’s design philosophy of maximizing throughput via many cores sharing resources within modules.

The Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3, in contrast, uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-WS, on Intel’s 22 nm process. It contains 1,400 million transistors on a single 160 mm² die. Its cache is per-core: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. Intel’s design emphasizes single-thread efficiency and lower latency per core, which typically yields higher instructions per clock compared to Piledriver.

Another key difference is the memory controller. The Opteron supports quad-channel DDR3, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon supports dual-channel DDR3 at 25.6 GB/s. Additionally, the Opteron uses PCIe Gen 2, whereas the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. These differences reflect their target markets: the Opteron for multi-socket, memory-heavy workloads, and the Xeon for single-socket, latency-sensitive tasks.

The production timelines differ as well. The Opteron 6348 was released on 2012-11-04, while the Xeon arrived later on 2014-05-10. Despite the newer release, the Xeon’s lower core count and smaller memory bus mean it cannot match the Opteron in raw multi-threaded throughput, even though its architecture is more modern.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Opteron 6348 across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. It wins every multi-core and single-core test by margins ranging from 11.8% to 11.9%. This suggests the Opteron’s 12 physical cores provide a decisive advantage in heavily threaded workloads, even against the Xeon’s hyper-threaded 4 cores.

In multi-core scenarios, the Opteron’s lead is consistent. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Opteron scores 6672 versus the Xeon’s 5967, an 11.8% advantage. This indicates that applications leveraging 8 or more threads will favor the AMD part. The quad-channel memory bandwidth also helps in memory-bound server tasks, providing 59.7 GB/s versus the Xeon’s 25.6 GB/s.

However, the Xeon’s wins are more subtle and not reflected in the provided benchmarks. Its lower 80 W TDP makes it more power-efficient, and its 22 nm process and 160 mm² die size suggest better thermal characteristics. The Xeon also supports PCIe Gen 3, which offers higher I/O bandwidth for modern peripherals. For single-socket systems where power draw and platform simplicity matter, the Xeon is the more practical choice, even if it loses in raw compute benchmarks.

The Opteron’s larger memory bus and 12 cores make it a better fit for virtualization, database servers, and heavy multi-threaded rendering. The Xeon, with its higher per-core clock speeds (3.40 GHz base, 3.80 GHz boost versus the Opteron’s 2.80 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost), would be preferable for lightly threaded workloads that require lower latency, though the data shows the Opteron still wins single-core tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical and functional specification. The Opteron 6348 has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Xeon E3-1231 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron’s base clock is 2.80 GHz with a boost of 3.40 GHz, while the Xeon runs at 3.40 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. TDP differs significantly: 115 W for the Opteron versus 80 W for the Xeon.

The sockets are incompatible: the Opteron uses AMD Socket G34, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1150. The process nodes differ (32 nm versus 22 nm), as do the transistor counts (2,400 million versus 1,400 million) and die sizes (2x 315 mm² versus 160 mm²). Cache structures are distinct, with the Opteron using module-based L2 and per-die L3, while the Xeon uses per-core L1 and L2 with shared L3.

Memory support shows the Opteron with quad-channel DDR3 at 59.7 GB/s, versus the Xeon’s dual-channel DDR3 at 25.6 GB/s. PCIe generation differs: Gen 2 on the Opteron, Gen 3 on the Xeon. Both support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics. Their launch MSRPs were $575 for the Opteron and $250 for the Xeon, though the Opteron’s higher core count and memory bandwidth justify its higher price point.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a consistent pattern: the AMD Opteron 6348 wins all six Cinebench tests, with margins that are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 672 against the Xeon’s 601, a 11.8% lead. The single-core test shows a 94 to 84 score, a 11.9% advantage for AMD. This consistency suggests the Opteron’s architecture delivers a proportional performance edge across different workload types.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron again wins multi-core with 2802 versus 2506, an 11.8% delta. Its single-core score of 395 beats the Xeon’s 353, a 11.9% lead. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23: multi-core scores are 6672 and 5967, and single-core scores are 942 and 842, with deltas of 11.8% and 11.9% respectively.

The uniformity of these results, every test showing roughly an 11.8-11.9% advantage, indicates that the Opteron’s performance lead is not workload-specific but rather a general architectural superiority in this benchmark suite. Notably, the Xeon’s higher clock speeds (3.80 GHz boost versus 3.40 GHz) do not translate into a single-core victory, suggesting the Piledriver architecture’s IPC, while older, is sufficient to overcome the clock deficit in Cinebench’s rendering workload.

The Xeon does not win any of the six head-to-head tests, and the available data does not include Geekbench results for the Opteron, though the Xeon’s Geekbench scores (3939 multi-core, 1109 single-core) provide a reference point for its absolute performance. Overall, the Opteron 6348 is the clear winner in this comparison, leveraging its 12 cores and wider memory bus to outpace the Xeon E3-1231 v3 in every measured category.