AMD Opteron 6348 vs Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent pattern across all six Cinebench tests: the AMD Opteron 6348 finishes ahead of the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 in every single benchmark. The margins are narrow, but they are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Opteron scores 672 against the Xeon’s 656, a lead of 2.4 percent. The single-core R15 result follows the same shape: 94 for AMD versus 92 for Intel, a 2.1 percent edge. These are not large gaps, but they appear in every workload category, which suggests the AMD processor holds a small but genuine performance advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron again wins multicore with 2802 points compared to the Xeon’s 2735, a 2.4 percent difference. In single-core R20, the Opteron scores 395 versus 385, a 2.5 percent margin. The R23 results repeat the theme: multicore 6672 for AMD against 6512 for Intel, a 2.4 percent lead, and single-core 942 against 919, also a 2.4 percent lead. The consistency is striking. Across six benchmarks, the delta never exceeds 2.5 percent, and it never falls below 2.1 percent. The Opteron wins all six recorded tests.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The Xeon E3-1270L v4 has an average score of 1883 across its benchmark suite, while the Opteron 6348 averages 1930. That is a 2.5 percent overall advantage for AMD. However, the percentile rankings are identical: both processors sit at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. This means that while the Opteron scores higher on average, both chips land in the same performance tier relative to the broader CPU landscape. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 at 1882 (a 0.1 percent difference) and the Intel Xeon D-1531 at 1885 (a 0.1 percent difference in the other direction). The Opteron’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-1180G7 at exactly 1930, a zero percent delta, with the Intel Core i3-10300 close behind at 1934.

What does this mean practically? In any given Cinebench run, the Opteron will typically post a slightly higher score, but the margin is small enough that real-world differences in threaded workloads would be difficult to perceive without careful measurement. The data does not show a dominant victory for either side; it shows a modest, repeatable edge for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from very different design philosophies and eras. The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 is built on Intel’s 14 nm process, with a die size of 182 mm², and uses the Broadwell-DT architecture. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The cache layout is per-core: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The memory interface is dual-channel DDR3, with a theoretical bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. It supports ECC memory, which is typical for a server/workstation part. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 16 lanes available from the CPU. The TDP is 45 watts, which is very low for a server processor and reflects the power-efficient Broadwell design.

The AMD Opteron 6348 is a fundamentally different beast. It uses the Piledriver architecture (codenamed Abu Dhabi) and is manufactured on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The die is listed as 2x 315 mm², meaning two physical dies, and the transistor count is 2,400 million. It has 12 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The cache configuration is module-based: 576 KB of L1 total, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. Memory support is quad-channel DDR3, doubling the theoretical bandwidth to 59.7 GB/s compared to the Intel part. ECC memory is also supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 2, an older generation than the Intel chip’s Gen 3. The TDP is 115 watts, more than double the Intel’s 45 watts, reflecting the older process node and higher core count.

The release dates underscore the generational gap. The Opteron 6348 launched on 2012-11-04, while the Xeon E3-1270L v4 arrived on 2015-06-01. The Opteron is also marked as end-of-life in the database, while the Xeon does not have that status listed. The sockets are incompatible: the Intel uses Socket 1150, while the AMD uses Socket G34.

These architectural differences explain the benchmark results. The Opteron has three times as many physical cores (12 versus 4) and double the memory bandwidth, yet it only manages a 2.4 percent lead in multicore Cinebench. The Xeon’s newer 14 nm process, higher clock speeds, and per-core cache design allow it to keep pace despite being heavily outnumbered in core count. The single-core results are nearly identical (94 versus 92 in R15, 395 versus 385 in R20, 942 versus 919 in R23), which suggests the Intel core is more efficient on a per-thread basis, but not enough to overcome the Opteron’s raw core advantage.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, winner: the AMD Opteron 6348 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks and has a higher average benchmark score (1930 versus 1883). If the decision is based purely on recorded Cinebench performance, the Opteron is the better choice. The margins are small, but they are consistent across every test, and the multicore results show that the 12-core Piledriver design can edge out the 4-core Broadwell part even in single-threaded workloads.

However, the Xeon E3-1270L v4 is not without arguments in its favor. The TDP difference is substantial: 45 watts versus 115 watts. In a dense server environment or a power-constrained deployment, that difference could be decisive. The Xeon also has a newer process node (14 nm versus 32 nm), a newer PCIe generation (Gen 3 versus Gen 2), and a more recent release date. The memory bandwidth is lower, but the Xeon’s dual-channel configuration may be sufficient for many workloads.

For a buyer who prioritizes raw compute scores in Cinebench, the Opteron 6348 is the pick. For a buyer who prioritizes power efficiency, the Xeon is the pick. The percentile rankings are identical at 43, meaning neither chip stands out in the broader market. The Opteron has a slight edge in performance, but the Xeon has a massive edge in efficiency. The verdict depends on which metric matters more in the target environment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 has an average benchmark score of 1930, while the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 has an average of 1883.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multicore Cinebench R23?

A: The Opteron scores 6672 and the Xeon scores 6512, a lead of 2.4 percent for the AMD part.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 and the AMD Opteron 6348 have ECC memory support listed in the database.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the AMD Opteron 6348 has a TDP of 115 watts.

Q: Which chip has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Are the two processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6348 wins every recorded benchmark. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it leads by 2.4 percent. In single-core R15, it leads by 2.1 percent. In R20 multicore, the lead is 2.4 percent; in single-core, 2.5 percent. In R23 multicore and single-core, the lead is 2.4 percent in both cases. There is no benchmark in the data where the Intel part takes the top score. The Opteron’s advantage is uniform, which is notable given the architectural differences. The 12-core design, combined with a higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, appears to provide a small but real edge across all Cinebench versions.

The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 does not win any benchmark, but it wins in efficiency and platform modernity. The 45 watt TDP is less than half of the Opteron’s 115 watts. The Intel chip uses a 14 nm process versus 32 nm, supports PCIe Gen 3 versus Gen 2, and was released about two and a half years later. For workloads that are power-sensitive or that require a newer PCIe interface, the Xeon is the more attractive option, even though the raw scores are slightly lower.

In terms of memory, the Opteron has a clear theoretical advantage with quad-channel support and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, double the Xeon’s 29.9 GB/s. But the benchmark data does not include memory-specific tests, so the practical impact remains unmeasured. The cache configurations also differ: the Xeon has 6 MB of shared L3, while the Opteron has 8 MB per die. Neither chip has a clear cache advantage that shows up in the recorded scores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Opteron 6348 has 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz for Intel and 2.80 GHz for AMD; boost clocks are 3.60 GHz and 3.40 GHz respectively. The TDP is 45 watts versus 115 watts. The sockets are different: Intel Socket 1150 for the Xeon, AMD Socket G34 for the Opteron.

The process node is 14 nm for Intel and 32 nm for AMD. The foundry is Intel for the Xeon and GlobalFoundries for the Opteron. The die size is 182 mm² for the Intel chip, while the AMD chip is listed as 2x 315 mm². The transistor count is only listed for the AMD part at 2,400 million. The cache structure differs: Intel uses 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, with 6 MB shared L3; AMD uses 576 KB total L1 and 2 MB L2 per module, with 8 MB L3 per die.

Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Intel uses dual-channel with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD uses quad-channel with 59.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe differs: Intel has Gen 3 with 16 lanes, AMD has Gen 2 without lane count specified. The release dates are 2015-06-01 for Intel and 2012-11-04 for AMD. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $575 and is marked as end-of-life; the Intel part has no MSRP listed and no production status. The part numbers are SR2AZ for Intel and OS6348WKTCGHK for AMD. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has integrated graphics. The Opteron belongs to the Opteron 6000 series; the Xeon has no series listed.