AMD Opteron 6366 HE vs Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual outcome: the AMD Opteron 6366 HE wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3, though by very narrow margins. The largest advantage appears in the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, where the AMD processor leads by 1.7% in each case. In R15 multicore, the Opteron scores 480 against 472 for the Xeon; in R20 multicore, it is 2003 versus 1970; and in R23 multicore, it reaches 4771 compared to 4692.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, but with slightly smaller gaps. The Opteron wins R15 single-core 67 to 66, a 1.5% margin, and R20 single-core 282 to 278, a 1.4% difference. The R23 single-core test shows the AMD part ahead by 1.7% once more, scoring 673 against 662. These margins are remarkably consistent, which suggests the performance gap is systematic rather than an artifact of any single workload.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture, though the overall difference shrinks. The Opteron's average is 1379, while the Xeon's average is 1357, a gap of roughly 1.6%. Both processors land at the 36th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier despite their very different internal designs.

What the head-to-head data does not show is any workload where the Xeon strikes back. The wins column reads 6 for the AMD part and 0 for the Intel part. However, the deltas are so small that real-world applications might not consistently reproduce them. The database records what it records: a clean sweep for the Opteron, but a sweep measured in single-digit percentage points.

Architecture Differences

The two processors could hardly be more different under the hood, and those differences explain why their benchmark scores converge so closely despite opposite design philosophies.

The AMD Opteron 6366 HE is a 16-core, 16-thread part built on GlobalFoundries' 32 nm process, using the Piledriver architecture with the codename Abu Dhabi. It belongs to the Opteron 6000 series and targets the server/workstation segment. The chip is physically large, with a die size listed as 2x 315 mm² and a transistor count of 2,400 million. It operates at a base clock of 1800.00 MHz and boosts to 3.10 GHz, with a TDP of 85 watts.

The Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3, by contrast, is a 4-core, 4-thread processor built on Intel's 22 nm process, using the Haswell architecture with the codename Haswell-WS. Its die is 160 mm² with 1,400 million transistors. The base clock is much higher at 3.30 GHz, boosting to 3.70 GHz, and the TDP is nearly identical at 84 watts.

Cache hierarchies diverge substantially. The Opteron has 768 KB of L1 cache total, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. In aggregate, the AMD part likely carries more cache, but the per-core figures favor the Intel design.

Memory support differs as well. Both use DDR3, and both support ECC memory, but the Opteron runs a quad-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Xeon runs dual-channel with 25.6 GB/s. That is a 2.3x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part, which may matter in memory-intensive server workloads.

PCIe generations also differ. The Opteron uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Xeon uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon also includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD P4600, whereas the Opteron has no integrated graphics at all.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket G34 for the Opteron, Intel Socket 1150 for the Xeon. Release dates are roughly 18 months apart, with the Opteron launching in November 2012 and the Xeon in May 2014. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Opteron 6366 HE in multicore workloads?

A: The Opteron leads the Xeon E3-1226 v3 by 1.7% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. Specific scores are 480 versus 472, 2003 versus 1970, and 4771 versus 4692 respectively.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The recorded data shows the Opteron winning all six comparisons, with the Xeon recording zero wins. The closest margin is 1.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core.

Q: How do the core counts compare, and why does the 4-core Xeon stay competitive?

A: The Opteron has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon compensates with a much higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 1.80 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus 3.10 GHz, which explains the near-parity in single-threaded results.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Opteron has a quad-channel memory bus delivering 59.7 GB/s, while the Xeon has a dual-channel bus delivering 25.6 GB/s. The AMD part offers more than double the theoretical bandwidth.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The Opteron uses GlobalFoundries' 32 nm process with 2,400 million transistors across a 2x 315 mm² die. The Xeon uses Intel's 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Opteron 6366 HE and the Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 support ECC memory, and both use DDR3.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors according to the recorded data:

• Cores: AMD Opteron 6366 HE has 16; Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 has 4.
• Threads: AMD has 16; Intel has 4.
• Base clock: AMD is 1800.00 MHz; Intel is 3.30 GHz.
• Boost clock: AMD is 3.10 GHz; Intel is 3.70 GHz.
• Socket: AMD uses Socket G34; Intel uses Socket 1150.
• Architecture: AMD uses Piledriver; Intel uses Haswell.
• Codename: AMD is Abu Dhabi; Intel is Haswell-WS.
• Process node: AMD is 32 nm; Intel is 22 nm.
• Foundry: AMD uses GlobalFoundries; Intel uses its own fabs.
• Transistors: AMD has 2,400 million; Intel has 1,400 million.
• Die size: AMD is 2x 315 mm²; Intel is 160 mm².
• L1 cache: AMD has 768 KB total; Intel has 64 KB per core.
• L2 cache: AMD has 2 MB per module; Intel has 256 KB per core.
• L3 cache: AMD has 8 MB per die; Intel has 8 MB shared.
• Memory bus: AMD is quad-channel; Intel is dual-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: AMD is 59.7 GB/s; Intel is 25.6 GB/s.
• PCIe: AMD is Gen 2; Intel is Gen 3, 16 lanes from CPU.
• Integrated graphics: AMD has none; Intel has Intel HD P4600.
• Release date: AMD launched 2012-11-04; Intel launched 2014-05-10.
• Launch MSRP: AMD was $575; Intel was $213.
• Part number: AMD is OS6366VATGGHK; Intel is SR1R0.

Fields that are the same include TDP (85 watts for AMD, 84 watts for Intel), memory type (DDR3 for both), ECC support (both true), market segment (server/workstation for both), production status (end-of-life for both), and multiplier unlock status (false for both).

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward verdict: the AMD Opteron 6366 HE wins every recorded comparison, but the margins are so small that the choice between these two processors should hinge on platform considerations rather than raw benchmark scores.

The Opteron's six wins come with deltas between 1.4% and 1.7%. The average benchmark score difference is 1379 versus 1357, a 1.6% gap. Neither processor stands out in the broader database, as both sit at the 36th percentile. The Opteron's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2300U and Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 with identical average scores, while the Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-6500T and i5-8365UE, both slightly ahead.

For a server or workstation buyer choosing between these two end-of-life platforms, the data suggests the Opteron offers a marginal performance edge. However, the Xeon's higher clock speeds deliver comparable results with far fewer cores, which may simplify software licensing in per-core models. The Opteron's quad-channel memory and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth could benefit memory-heavy workloads, while the Xeon's integrated graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic display scenarios.

The Xeon also launched later and at a lower price point, but the database does not track current availability or pricing, so those factors are not part of this analysis. What the measurements show is a narrow but consistent victory for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6366 HE wins in every benchmark category recorded, but the nature of those wins suggests where each processor is best deployed.

The Opteron's multicore victories, while small, come from a 16-core design. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 4771 against 4692. This indicates the AMD part scales reasonably across its many cores, and the 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth could be an advantage in applications that stream large datasets. The quad-channel memory bus is a structural advantage that benchmarks of this type may not fully capture.

The Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3, despite losing every head-to-head test, shows its strength in efficiency per core. With only 4 cores and 4 threads, it nearly matches a 16-core processor in both single-core and multicore scores. Its base clock of 3.30 GHz and boost of 3.70 GHz are far higher than the Opteron's 1.80 GHz base, allowing it to compete without needing many cores. In environments where per-core software licensing is a concern, the Xeon's 4-core footprint could be the practical winner, even though it loses on raw benchmark points.

The Xeon also brings platform advantages that the benchmarks do not measure. PCIe Gen 3 support means faster connectivity to modern peripherals. The integrated Intel HD P4600 graphics remove the need for a discrete GPU in headless or light-display server roles. The smaller die and lower transistor count suggest a more power-efficient design per unit of silicon, even though the TDP figures are nearly identical.

The Opteron's wins are real but narrow. The Xeon's losses are real but equally narrow. The data shows a processor with 16 cores and a processor with 4 cores producing almost identical results across six tests. That outcome favors the Intel part in scenarios where cores are expensive, and favors the AMD part in scenarios where memory bandwidth or raw thread count matters more than the benchmark scores alone can show.