AMD Opteron 6376 vs Intel Xeon W-2104 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD Opteron 6376 wins every single head-to-head comparison, though by margins so narrow that the two processors are effectively peers in Cinebench workloads. Across six tests spanning Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the Opteron 6376 edges out the Intel Xeon W-2104 by 1.3% to 1.5% in every case. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where AMD scores 477 against Intel's 470, a 1.5% advantage. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, at 1.3% (668 versus 659).

The single-core results are almost too close to call. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Opteron 6376 posts 67 points versus 66 for the Xeon W-2104. That 1.5% delta translates to exactly one point. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a similar pattern: 280 for AMD, 276 for Intel, a 1.4% difference. Even with a 3.20 GHz base clock on the Intel part and a 2.30 GHz base clock on the AMD part, the older Piledriver architecture manages to keep pace in single-threaded throughput. The Opteron's boost clock of 3.20 GHz matches the Xeon's base clock, which helps explain the near-parity.

Multicore results follow the same trajectory. Cinebench R20 multicore gives the Opteron 6376 a 1989 score against 1960 for the Xeon W-2104. In Cinebench R23 multicore, AMD leads 4736 to 4669. The Opteron 6376 has four times the core count (16 versus 4), yet its advantage remains under 2%. This suggests the Xeon W-2104's Skylake architecture extracts substantially more work per core, compensating for the massive core-count disparity. The data does not support the notion that the Opteron's 16 cores deliver proportionally higher throughput; instead, the per-core efficiency of the Intel design nearly neutralizes AMD's core advantage.

It is notably both processors land at the 36th percentile among all CPUs in the benchmark database. Their average benchmark scores bracket each other tightly: the Opteron 6376 averages 1370, while the Xeon W-2104 averages 1350. The nearest rivals for each processor confirm this positioning. The Opteron 6376 sits exactly even with the Intel Core i7-2600 (1370, 0% delta) and just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2. The Xeon W-2104 is 0.1% ahead of the Core i5-7400T and 0.2% ahead of the Core i5-4670. In other words, these two server chips perform like mid-range desktop processors from several generations ago.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Opteron 6376 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. It holds a 1.5% advantage in Cinebench R15 multicore and single-core, a 1.5% edge in R20 multicore, a 1.4% lead in R20 single-core, a 1.4% margin in R23 multicore, and a 1.3% lead in R23 single-core.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD Opteron 6376 has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Xeon W-2104 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite having four times the core count, the Opteron's benchmark advantage never exceeds 1.5%.

Q: What are the base clock speeds?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2104 runs at a base clock of 3.20 GHz with no boost clock listed. The AMD Opteron 6376 has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 6376 has an average benchmark score of 1370, compared to 1350 for the Intel Xeon W-2104. The Opteron's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-2600 at exactly 1370, while the Xeon's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 at 1357.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2104 supports DDR4 memory with quad-channel access and a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The AMD Opteron 6376 supports DDR3 memory with quad-channel access and a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The Intel Xeon W-2104 was released on 2017-08-28, while the AMD Opteron 6376 was released on 2012-11-04.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6376 wins every benchmark category in the head-to-head data, but the practical implications of those wins are minimal given the margins. In multicore workloads, the Opteron's 16 cores should theoretically dominate, yet it only manages a 1.5% lead in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore, and a 1.4% lead in R23 multicore. This suggests that workloads heavily dependent on memory bandwidth or cache hierarchy might favor the Intel part, but the provided benchmark data does not include such tests.

For single-threaded tasks, the Opteron 6376 again leads, but by 1.3% to 1.5%. The Xeon W-2104's higher base clock (3.20 GHz versus 2.30 GHz) and newer Skylake architecture do not translate into a single-core victory. The Opteron's boost clock of 3.20 GHz matches the Xeon's base clock, which likely explains why single-core performance is nearly identical.

The Intel Xeon W-2104 does not win any benchmark in the dataset. However, its specification sheet reveals areas where it could be preferred in real-world deployments. It supports DDR4 memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Opteron's DDR3 at 59.7 GB/s. It also offers PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Opteron provides PCIe Gen 2. These differences do not appear in Cinebench scores but could matter for storage, networking, or GPU-bound workloads.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the Opteron 6376 is nominally the winner, but the margin is so thin that users would not notice a difference. For workloads that leverage newer memory technologies or higher PCIe bandwidth, the Xeon W-2104's platform features give it an unquantified but plausible advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Intel Xeon W-2104 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Opteron 6376 has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz for Intel and 2.30 GHz for AMD; the Opteron also lists a 3.20 GHz boost clock, while the Xeon has no boost clock specified. Thermal design power is close: 120 watts for the Xeon, 115 watts for the Opteron.

The Xeon W-2104 uses the Intel Socket 2066, while the Opteron 6376 uses the AMD Socket G34. Memory support distinguishes them further: DDR4 for Intel, DDR3 for AMD. Both use quad-channel memory buses, but bandwidth differs significantly — 85.3 GB/s for the Xeon versus 59.7 GB/s for the Opteron. PCIe capabilities also diverge, with the Xeon offering Gen 3 and 48 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 2 for the Opteron.

Launch MSRP values are $255 for the Xeon W-2104 and $703 for the Opteron 6376. Both processors support ECC memory, neither has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon's part number is SR3LH; the Opteron's is OS6376WKTGGHK. Release dates are separated by nearly five years: 2017-08-28 for Intel, 2012-11-04 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Xeon W-2104 is built on Skylake architecture with the Skylake-W codename, fabricated on a 14 nm process node by Intel. The AMD Opteron 6376 uses Piledriver architecture with the Abu Dhabi codename, on a 32 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. The process node difference — 14 nm versus 32 nm — explains much of the performance-per-watt and die-size disparity.

Die sizes tell a striking story. The Xeon W-2104 has a die size of 484 mm² on a single die. The Opteron 6376 is listed as 2x 315 mm², meaning two dies totaling 630 mm². The Opteron also lists 2,400 million transistors, while the Xeon's transistor count is not provided in the data. The larger process node and dual-die design contribute to the Opteron's higher core count but also to its older platform limitations.

Cache hierarchies are fundamentally different. The Xeon W-2104 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8.25 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron 6376 has 768 KB of L1 cache total, 2 MB of L2 cache per module, and 8 MB of L3 cache per die. The per-core L2 allocation is comparable, but the L3 distribution differs: the Xeon shares 8.25 MB across 4 cores, while the Opteron provides 8 MB per die across 8 cores per die.

Memory architecture also reflects the generational gap. The Xeon's DDR4 support with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth nearly doubles the Opteron's DDR3 bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The PCIe generation difference (Gen 3 versus Gen 2) further highlights the Xeon's newer platform. Both processors use quad-channel memory buses, but the underlying memory technology is a generation apart.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner: the AMD Opteron 6376 outperforms the Intel Xeon W-2104 in every Cinebench benchmark included, yet the margins are consistently between 1.3% and 1.5%. For rendering workloads measured by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the Opteron 6376 is the faster processor. Its 16 cores versus 4 cores should have produced a landslide, but the Xeon's Skylake architecture and higher base clock nearly closed the gap entirely.

Buyers focused purely on raw Cinebench scores should choose the Opteron 6376, but they should not expect a perceptible difference. The 1.3% to 1.5% deltas are within run-to-run variance for most benchmarking scenarios. The Opteron's average benchmark score of 1370 versus 1350 for the Xeon reinforces this: the difference is less than 1.5% of the average score.

However, the Xeon W-2104 offers platform advantages that Cinebench does not measure. Its DDR4 memory support with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes, and 14 nm process node represent a newer generation of technology. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive or PCIe-lane dependent, the Xeon could easily outperform the Opteron despite losing every Cinebench test.

The Opteron 6376's launch MSRP of $703 was substantially higher than the Xeon W-2104's $255, yet its benchmark performance is only marginally better. Both processors sit at the 36th percentile among all CPUs, and both are end-of-life products. The Opteron 6376 is the safer recommendation strictly on benchmark data, but the Xeon W-2104's platform features make it the more forward-looking choice for systems that leverage modern memory and I/O standards.