AMD Opteron 6366 HE vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 and AMD Opteron 6366 HE present a fascinating study in architectural philosophy: a 4-core/8-thread Haswell part with a 25 W TDP against a 16-core/16-thread Piledriver behemoth with an 85 W TDP. The benchmark data reveals a striking outcome: the Intel chip wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, despite having only a quarter of the physical cores. This reflects the power of per-core efficiency and modern IPC, but the Opteron’s sheer core count keeps the margins razor-thin throughout.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most immediate observation from the head-to-head data is the consistency of Intel’s victory. Across every Cinebench iteration—R15, R20, and R23—the Xeon E3-1240L v3 posts a higher score than the Opteron 6366 HE, but the deltas are remarkably small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel wins by just 1.3%, scoring 486 against the Opteron’s 480. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap of 1.5%, with scores of 68 and 67 respectively. This pattern holds in R20 multi-core (2027 vs. 2003, a 1.2% lead) and R20 single-core (286 vs. 282, a 1.4% lead).

The trend continues into R23, where the multi-core scores are 4827 for Intel and 4771 for AMD, a 1.2% margin, and the single-core results are 681 vs. 673, again a 1.2% margin. The data does not show a single test where the Opteron manages to pull ahead. The wins for the Xeon E3-1240L v3 total 6, with 0 for the Opteron. What is most telling is that the multi-core advantage for the 4-core Intel part is not larger, suggesting that the Opteron’s 16 cores are nearly compensating for its older architecture.

Interpreting these scores against their respective rival pools adds context. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 sits at the 37th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1396. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-6500TE (deltaPct -0.2%) and the Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 (deltaPct -0.4%). The Opteron 6366 HE is just one percentile point lower at 36, with an average score of 1379, placing it alongside the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2300U (deltaPct 0%) and the Intel Core i7-3740QM (deltaPct 0.1%). The performance difference between the two chips is thus negligible in absolute terms, even though the architectural gap is enormous.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is wide, and the benchmark results are a direct consequence of their designs. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, using a 22 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It features 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Its cache layout is straightforward: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The transistor count is 1,400 million on a die size of 160 mm².

In contrast, the AMD Opteron 6366 HE is a Piledriver-based part, codenamed Abu Dhabi, manufactured on a 32 nm node by GlobalFoundries. It packs 16 cores and 16 threads, with a lower base clock of 1800.00 MHz but a slightly higher boost clock of 3.10 GHz. Its cache structure is more complex, reflecting its dual-die design: 768 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The transistor count is 2,400 million, spread across two dies with a combined size of 2x 315 mm². The Intel chip’s smaller process node and newer architecture are clearly driving its higher single-thread efficiency, allowing it to beat a chip with four times the cores in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support also diverges sharply. The Xeon uses dual-channel DDR3 with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, while the Opteron leverages quad-channel DDR3 with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the Opteron’s memory bandwidth is over twice that of the Xeon, which should theoretically aid in memory-intensive server workloads. The PCIe generations differ as well: Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while AMD offers Gen 2. These architectural features—core count, memory channels, and process node—paint a picture of two very different server strategies.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins in every single Cinebench test, from single-core to multi-core. This suggests it is the superior choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench’s rendering engine, which is typically sensitive to both IPC and clock speed. The Xeon’s wins in single-core tests (68 vs. 67 in R15, 286 vs. 282 in R20, 681 vs. 673 in R23) are expected given its higher base clock and newer architecture. Its wins in multi-core tests (486 vs. 480, 2027 vs. 2003, 4827 vs. 4771) are more surprising, as the Opteron’s 16 cores should provide a massive raw compute advantage.

The data implies that the Opteron’s multi-core advantage is almost entirely negated by the Xeon’s superior per-core throughput. However, the fact that the Opteron comes within 1.2% to 1.5% of the Xeon in multi-core tests, despite having 12 more physical cores, indicates that there is a scenario where the Opteron could win: if the workload scaled perfectly across all 16 cores and utilized the Opteron’s quad-channel memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, it might edge ahead. The benchmark results do not show this happening in Cinebench, but they do show that the Opteron is not far behind. For purely single-threaded tasks, the Xeon is clearly ahead, but the gap is so small that it is almost within noise. The Opteron’s potential wins would likely come from workloads that are not represented in these Cinebench tests, such as those heavily dependent on memory bandwidth or parallel thread scaling beyond 8 threads.

The Verdict

From the data, the verdict is clear for Cinebench-based performance: the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is the winner, taking all six head-to-head tests. Its 6-0 record in wins is the definitive metric here. The Xeon’s consistency across all Cinebench versions—R15, R20, and R23—demonstrates that its architectural efficiency is not a fluke of a single test version. It delivers a higher average benchmark score (1396 vs. 1379) and a slightly higher percentile ranking (37th vs. 36th). For users whose primary benchmark is Cinebench, the Intel part is the unambiguous choice.

However, the Opteron 6366 HE is not a loser in a broader sense. Its performance is within 1.5% of the Xeon across the board, and it does so with 16 cores, which could be an advantage for other, non-Cinebench workloads. The data does not support choosing the Opteron for rendering tasks, but it does suggest that the Opteron is a capable alternative if the workload favors its quad-channel memory and higher core count. For a server environment where power consumption is critical, the Xeon’s 25 W TDP versus the Opteron’s 85 W TDP is a massive differentiator, despite the performance parity. The verdict is that the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins on benchmark performance, but the Opteron’s core count and memory bandwidth offer a different kind of value that is not reflected in these specific tests.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon scores 4827, which is 1.2% higher than the Opteron’s 4771.

Q: Does the AMD Opteron 6366 HE win any benchmark tests against the Xeon?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 6 wins for the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 and 0 wins for the Opteron across all Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the core count difference between the two processors?

A: The Opteron has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 1396, while the Opteron has an average of 1379.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Opteron has a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon has 25.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon has a TDP of 25 W, and the AMD Opteron has a TDP of 85 W.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 | AMD Opteron 6366 HE |

|:--- |:--- |:--- |

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2000.00 MHz | 1800.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 25 W | 85 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket G34 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Piledriver |

| Codename | Haswell-WS | Abu Dhabi |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 2,400 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 2x 315 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 768 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per module) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 8 MB (per die) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Release Date | 2014-05-10 | 2012-11-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $278 | $575 |

| Part Number | SR1T8 | OS6366VATGGHK |

| Percentile vs. All CPUs | 37 | 36 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 1396 | 1379 |