AMD Opteron 6348 vs Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 and the AMD Opteron 6348 represent two distinct approaches to server processing, separated by process node, core count, and architectural philosophy. The data from the Cinebench suite shows the AMD Opteron 6348 winning all six head-to-head benchmarks, though by a remarkably narrow margin. The Opteron 6348’s average benchmark score of 1930 places it 1% ahead of the Xeon E3-1575M v5’s 1910, placing both in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. Despite the Opteron’s victory, the Xeon’s efficiency and architectural advantages tell a compelling counter-story, making this comparison less about raw performance and more about workload suitability.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6348 wins every render benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins are so thin they border on statistical noise. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 672 against the Xeon’s 665, a 1% advantage. That lead persists across R20 (2802 vs 2774) and R23 (6672 vs 6607), all with the same 1% delta. The single-core results follow the same pattern: the Opteron leads by 1.1% in R15 (94 vs 93) and R23 (942 vs 932), and by 1% in R20 (395 vs 391). The consistency of these margins—never exceeding 1.1%—indicates that the Opteron’s 12 physical cores provide a slight throughput edge over the Xeon’s 4 cores with 8 threads, but that advantage is heavily diluted by the Xeon’s superior per-core efficiency.

The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison, yet its architecture suggests it wins in scenarios the data does not capture. With a TDP of 45W versus the Opteron’s 115W, the Xeon offers a power efficiency profile that the Opteron cannot match. The Xeon’s integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580 provides a built-in GPU capability, while the Opteron lacks any integrated graphics. For workloads that are latency-sensitive or power-constrained, the Xeon’s design makes it the more practical choice, even if the raw render scores favor AMD. The Opteron’s victory is real but narrow; the Xeon’s strengths lie outside the Cinebench suite.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is generational. The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s foundry, packing 2,300 million transistors into a 171 mm² die. It uses the Skylake-H architecture with a Skylake core design. In contrast, the AMD Opteron 6348 uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 2,400 million transistors spread across two 315 mm² dies—a total die area roughly 3.7 times larger than the Intel chip. The Opteron’s Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, represents AMD’s modular approach, with 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads through Hyper-Threading.

Cache configurations highlight further divergence. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 8 MB of shared L3. The Opteron’s cache is organized per module and per die: 576 KB total L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die. Memory support also differs substantially. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, yielding 34.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Opteron is limited to DDR3 but uses a quad-channel setup, achieving 59.7 GB/s—75% more bandwidth than the Intel part. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Opteron is limited to PCIe Gen 2. Both support ECC memory, and both are end-of-life products, though the Xeon launched in January 2016 versus the Opteron’s November 2012 release.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 has 12 physical cores, while the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 has 4 cores. However, the Xeon supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Opteron has 12 threads with no SMT.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: The Opteron 6348 leads by 1% in all multi-core Cinebench tests. In R15, it scores 672 versus 665; in R20, 2802 versus 2774; and in R23, 6672 versus 6607.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Opteron 6348 provides 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth through its quad-channel DDR3 controller. The Xeon E3-1575M v5 offers 34.1 GB/s via dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 support.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 includes integrated graphics, specifically the Iris Pro Graphics P580. The AMD Opteron 6348 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Xeon E3-1575M v5 has a TDP of 45W, while the Opteron 6348 has a TDP of 115W—a difference of 70W, making the Intel part significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 and the AMD Opteron 6348 are end-of-life products. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $1207, while the Opteron’s launch MSRP was $575.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Opteron 6348 offers 12 cores and 12 threads, versus the Xeon’s 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are close—3.00 GHz for the Xeon and 2.80 GHz for the Opteron—but boost clocks favor Intel at 3.90 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. TDP is a major differentiator: 45W for Intel versus 115W for AMD. Sockets are incompatible (Intel BGA 1440 versus AMD Socket G34), and process nodes are two generations apart (14 nm vs 32 nm). The Xeon’s cache is per-core (64 KB L1, 256 KB L2, 8 MB shared L3), while the Opteron uses per-module L2 (2 MB) and per-die L3 (8 MB). Memory support sees Intel offering both DDR3 and DDR4, while AMD is DDR3-only; memory channels are 2 vs 4, and bandwidth is 34.1 GB/s vs 59.7 GB/s. PCIe support is Gen 3 with 16 lanes for Intel, versus Gen 2 for AMD. The Xeon includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580; the Opteron has none. The Xeon’s die is 171 mm² versus the Opteron’s dual 315 mm² dies, and its transistor count is slightly lower at 2,300 million versus 2,400 million. The Opteron’s launch MSRP of $575 was less than half the Xeon’s $1207, though pricing is not a performance metric.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results form a complete sweep for the AMD Opteron 6348, but the margins are consistently under 1.2%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 672 against the Xeon’s 665, a 1% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the Opteron at 94 versus 93, a 1.1% advantage. This pattern repeats in R20: multi-core sees the Opteron at 2802 versus 2774 (1% lead), and single-core at 395 versus 391 (1% lead). The R23 results are equally tight, with the Opteron winning multi-core 6672 to 6607 (1%) and single-core 942 to 932 (1.1%).

The consistency of these deltas—never exceeding 1.1%—suggests that the Opteron’s threefold core count advantage is almost entirely neutralized by the Xeon’s architectural efficiency. The Xeon’s 14 nm Skylake cores deliver far higher instructions per clock than the 32 nm Piledriver cores, allowing 4 cores to nearly match 12. The Opteron’s win is real, but it is a statistical margin, not a decisive one. The Xeon’s higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz helps close the gap, as does its smaller, more modern process node. For render workloads, the Opteron takes the crown, but the data indicates the Xeon’s per-core performance is substantially superior—it just lacks the core count to overcome the Opteron’s sheer volume of execution units. The Opteron’s quad-channel memory bandwidth (59.7 GB/s) may also contribute to its slight edge in multi-core tests, though the delta is too small to attribute definitively. In the end, six wins for AMD tell a story of narrow victory, while the underlying specifications tell a story of architectural mismatch that a different benchmark suite might well reverse.