CPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints an unusually close picture between the AMD Opteron 6376 and the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2. Across six Cinebench tests, the AMD chip claims all six wins, but the margins are razor-thin, the largest advantage is a 0.2% delta in Cinebench R15 multi-core, and three of the six tests end in a dead heat with identical scores.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Opteron 6376 holds a consistent, if narrow, edge. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 477 versus 476, a 0.2% margin. In R20 multi-core, the gap is 1989 to 1987 (0.1%), and in R23 multi-core it’s 4736 to 4732 (0.1%). These are not the kind of wins that will transform a render farm’s throughput, but they do mean the AMD part never loses a single benchmark in this comparison.

Single-threaded performance is a perfect tie across the board. Both processors produce exactly 67 points in Cinebench R15 single-core, 280 in R20 single-core, and 668 in R23 single-core. With a 0% delta in every single-core test, the two chips deliver identical per-thread performance in Cinebench’s workloads, despite their very different internal designs.

The practical takeaway is that neither processor gives you a meaningful performance advantage in Cinebench. The Opteron’s six-win sweep is statistically insignificant, a 0.2% margin is within run-to-run variance. However, the AMD chip does offer 16 cores versus 4 cores and 16 threads versus 8 threads, so in workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench measures here, the core-count differential could matter more. The Xeon’s edge lies elsewhere: it matches the Opteron’s performance with a 115W TDP versus 80W TDP, meaning the Intel part delivers the same benchmark results while drawing less power.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Opteron 6376 has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having four times the core count, the Opteron only leads the Xeon by 0.1% to 0.2% in multi-core Cinebench tests.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: They are exactly identical. Both score 67 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 280 in R20 single-core, and 668 in R23 single-core. The delta is 0% in every single-core benchmark.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Opteron 6376 has an average benchmark score of 1370, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 scores 1368. The difference is 0.1%, placing them as nearest rivals to each other in the database.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Opteron 6376 and the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 support ECC memory. Both are classified as Server/Workstation parts.

Q: What generation of PCI Express does each support?

A: The AMD Opteron 6376 supports PCIe Gen 2. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 24 lanes (CPU only). This is a significant interface difference between the two.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Opteron 6376 has a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s with quad-channel DDR3 support. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has 32.0 GB/s with triple-channel DDR3 support. The AMD part offers nearly double the theoretical bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a sweep for the AMD Opteron 6376, but the margins demand context. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 477 against the Xeon’s 476, a 0.2% advantage. That is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. Moving to R20 multi-core, the Opteron leads 1989 to 1987, a 0.1% edge. In R23 multi-core, the Opteron scores 4736 versus 4732, again 0.1% ahead.

The single-core results are dead even. Cinebench R15 single-core shows both at 67 points, R20 single-core shows both at 280, and R23 single-core shows both at 668. The delta is 0% for all three. This means the per-thread performance of the Piledriver-based Opteron is indistinguishable from the Ivy Bridge-based Xeon in Cinebench’s single-threaded workload.

For context on how close these chips are overall, the Opteron’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-2600 with an identical average score of 1370 and a 0% delta. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 sits right behind at 1368, a 0.1% difference from the Opteron. The Intel Xeon D-1521 and Core i7-3820QM round out the rival group with scores of 1367 and 1366 respectively. The entire cluster of five CPUs spans just 0.3% in average benchmark score, making this one of the tightest performance groupings in the database.

The Xeon’s wins are not in raw Cinebench scores but in efficiency. It matches the Opteron’s output with an 80W TDP versus 115W, a 35W difference. In a dense server environment, that could translate to lower cooling requirements and higher rack density, even if the benchmark numbers say the two are equal.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on paper. The AMD Opteron 6376 packs 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 offers 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ: the Opteron runs at 2.30 GHz, the Xeon at 2.80 GHz. Boost clocks are identical at 3.20 GHz for both.

Memory configurations are another major split. The Opteron uses quad-channel DDR3 with a theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3 with 32.0 GB/s. Both support ECC. The Opteron’s memory bandwidth advantage is substantial, nearly double, though Cinebench results do not reflect that benefit in this comparison.

PCIe support differs by generation. The Opteron is limited to Gen 2, while the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 24 lanes (CPU only). For modern expansion cards and NVMe storage, the Xeon’s Gen 3 interface is a meaningful upgrade path.

TDP is another clear differentiator: the Opteron draws 115W, the Xeon just 80W. The Xeon achieves the same benchmark scores with 35W less power envelope. Sockets are incompatible, the Opteron uses AMD Socket G34, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1356.

The Opteron carries a launch MSRP of $703. The Xeon has no launch MSRP listed. Both are end-of-life products, with the Opteron released in November 2012 and the Xeon in January 2014.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is wide. The AMD Opteron 6376 uses the Piledriver architecture under the codename Abu Dhabi, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die is composed of two 315 mm² chips, totaling 2,400 million transistors. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 uses Ivy Bridge (Ivy Bridge-EN), built on a 22 nm process at Intel. Its single die measures 257 mm² with 1,860 million transistors.

Cache layouts reflect the differing design philosophies. The Opteron has 768 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The Xeon’s larger shared L3 (10 MB versus 8 MB per die) helps its four cores, while the Opteron’s per-module L2 design is a holdover from the Bulldozer-derived Piledriver lineage.

The Opteron’s 16 cores are organized in modules, with each pair sharing resources, that explains why 16 cores yield only 16 threads with no SMT equivalent. The Xeon, by contrast, uses 4 cores with Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.30 GHz partially compensates for its lower core count in single-threaded work, which is why the single-core scores are identical.

Manufacturing differences are stark: GlobalFoundries’ 32 nm versus Intel’s 22 nm. The Xeon’s smaller process node contributes to its lower 80W TDP and smaller die size. The Opteron’s dual-die design (2x 315 mm²) is a legacy of AMD’s multi-chip module approach for server parts, versus Intel’s monolithic 257 mm² die for the E5-1410 v2.

Memory controllers also differ architecturally. The Opteron’s quad-channel controller feeds its 16 cores with 59.7 GB/s, while the Xeon’s triple-channel controller provides 32.0 GB/s to its 4 cores. Neither chip has integrated graphics, as both are server-class parts. Both lack unlocked multipliers, marking them as fixed-clock server processors.