AMD Opteron 6348 vs Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6348 and Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 are both end-of-life server and workstation processors, but they approach the workload from very different angles. The Opteron brings 12 physical cores and a quad-channel memory bus, while the Xeon counters with a newer 14 nm process, higher clock speeds, and integrated graphics. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the Opteron wins every round, though by margins of only 1% to 1.2%. This analysis walks through the benchmark data, specification differences, and architecture choices to clarify which processor fits which use case.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds?

A: The Opteron runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. The Xeon runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost.

Q: Which processor supports higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Opteron uses a quad-channel DDR3 interface with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon uses a dual-channel interface with 29.9 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Opteron 6348 and the Xeon E3-1285 v4 list ECC memory support.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Xeon E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics. The Opteron 6348 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The Opteron has an average benchmark score of 1930, while the Xeon scores 1908. Both sit at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: the AMD Opteron 6348 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 1% to 1.2%. The margins are narrow, but they are consistent across both multi-core and single-core workloads. For any application that relies on these specific render tests, the Opteron is the better performer. However, the Xeon E3-1285 v4 offers a lower TDP of 95 W compared to 115 W, includes integrated graphics, and supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Opteron is limited to PCIe Gen 2. The Xeon also has a smaller die size and a newer release date. The choice comes down to whether the user prioritizes the benchmark scores or the platform features. If raw Cinebench performance is the sole criterion, the Opteron wins. If lower power draw, integrated graphics, or newer PCIe are required, the Xeon has those advantages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clean sweep for the Opteron. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 672 against 664 for the Xeon, a 1.2% lead. The single-core test is nearly as close: 94 versus 93, a 1.1% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron again leads in multi-core with 2802 versus 2770, a 1.2% difference, and in single-core with 395 versus 391, a 1% edge. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: multi-core 6672 versus 6596, a 1.2% lead, and single-core 942 versus 931, also 1.2%. Across all six tests, the Opteron wins by a small but consistent margin.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Opteron averages 1930, while the Xeon averages 1908. Both processors sit at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are statistically similar in overall standing. The nearest rivals in the database also show how close these parts are. The Opteron's average score of 1930 exactly matches the Intel Core i7-1180G7, and it is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3. The Xeon's average of 1908 is within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5. These comparisons indicate that the two processors occupy the same performance tier, with the Opteron holding a slight edge in every recorded test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Opteron has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for the Opteron and 3.50 GHz for the Xeon; boost clocks are 3.40 GHz and 3.80 GHz, respectively. TDP is 115 W for the Opteron and 95 W for the Xeon. The Opteron uses AMD Socket G34, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1150. The process node is 32 nm for the Opteron (GlobalFoundries) and 14 nm for the Xeon (Intel). The Opteron's die size is listed as 2x 315 mm², while the Xeon's is 182 mm². The Opteron has 2,400 million transistors; the Xeon does not have a transistor count in the database.

Cache configurations also differ. The Opteron has 576 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB per module of L2, and 8 MB per die of L3. The Xeon has 64 KB per core of L1, 256 KB per core of L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Opteron uses a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses dual-channel with 29.9 GB/s. PCIe support is Gen 2 for the Opteron and Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) for the Xeon. The Xeon includes integrated graphics (Intel Iris Pro P6300), while the Opteron has none. Release dates are November 2012 for the Opteron and June 2015 for the Xeon. The launch MSRP for the Opteron was $575, and for the Xeon it was $556.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Opteron 6348 is built on AMD's Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, part of the Opteron 6000 series. It uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries and a dual-die design with a combined die size of 2x 315 mm². The Xeon E3-1285 v4 is based on Intel's Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-DT, on a 14 nm process from Intel. Its die size is 182 mm². The Opteron's 12 cores are arranged in Piledriver modules, with L2 cache allocated per module and L3 per die. The Xeon's 4 cores each have dedicated L1 and L2, with a shared 6 MB L3. The Opteron's memory controller is quad-channel, while the Xeon's is dual-channel, which explains the large bandwidth difference. The Xeon also integrates a GPU, a feature absent from the Opteron. PCIe generation differs as well: Gen 2 on the Opteron versus Gen 3 on the Xeon. These architectural choices reflect different design priorities: the Opteron emphasizes core count and memory throughput, while the Xeon focuses on per-core efficiency, lower power, and platform integration.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the Opteron a clean sweep in all six Cinebench tests, so it is the clear winner for workloads that mirror those render tests. The Opteron also wins on core count, thread count, memory bandwidth, and L1 cache size. For multi-threaded applications that scale with cores, the Opteron's 12 cores provide a structural advantage, even if the measured deltas are small. The Xeon, however, wins on TDP, offering 95 W versus 115 W, which can be decisive in power-constrained environments. The Xeon also includes integrated graphics, making it suitable for systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU. Its PCIe Gen 3 support is newer than the Opteron's Gen 2, which may matter for certain expansion cards. The Xeon's smaller die size and newer process node suggest better manufacturing efficiency, though the database does not provide direct power efficiency measurements beyond TDP. In summary, the Opteron is the pick for raw Cinebench performance and core-heavy workloads, while the Xeon is the pick for lower power draw, integrated graphics, and newer PCIe connectivity.