CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2124 and AMD Opteron 6380 are both end-of-life server/workstation processors, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. Benchmark results show the Xeon E-2124 winning all six head-to-head comparisons, yet the margins are remarkably thin, ranging from 0.9% to 1.3%. The Opteron 6380, despite having four times the physical cores, cannot overcome the architectural efficiency of the newer Intel part. The data indicates that the Xeon E-2124 is the superior performer in every measured Cinebench test, making it the clear choice for single-threaded tasks and lightly-threaded workloads. The Opteron 6380, however, offers a massive core count that, while not translating to wins in these specific benchmarks, suggests it may still serve workloads that scale differently than Cinebench’s rendering engine.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E-2124 wins every single head-to-head comparison. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 577 against the Opteron’s 572, a 0.9% lead. That same 0.9% advantage appears in R20 multi-core (2408 vs 2386) and R23 multi-core (5734 vs 5683). Single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Xeon leading by 1.3% in R15 (81 vs 80) and 0.9% in both R20 (339 vs 336) and R23 (809 vs 802). Given this sweep, the Xeon E-2124 is the recommended pick for any workload represented by these Cinebench tests. The Opteron 6380’s 16 cores and 16 threads provide no measurable benefit here; in fact, the 4-core, 4-thread Xeon outperforms it in every category. The Opteron’s only theoretical advantage lies in scenarios that are not captured by these benchmarks, but based strictly on the data, the Xeon E-2124 is the better processor. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, the choice is clear: the Intel Xeon E-2124. The Opteron 6380 should only be considered if its unique characteristics, such as quad-channel DDR3 memory support and its dual-die design, are critical to a specific legacy system requirement.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs could not be more different in their underlying design. The Intel Xeon E-2124 is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS variant, using a 14 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is per-core: 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The die size is 126 mm². In contrast, the AMD Opteron 6380 uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 32 nm process. It packs 16 cores and 16 threads, running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost of 3.40 GHz. Its cache layout is different: 768 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron’s die size is listed as 2x 315 mm², and it contains 2,400 million transistors. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, delivering 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Opteron uses DDR3 on a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s, a significant bandwidth advantage. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Opteron is limited to PCIe Gen 2. The Xeon also includes integrated UHD Graphics P630, whereas the Opteron has no integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory. The Xeon launched in July 2018 with a launch MSRP of $198; the Opteron launched in November 2012 with a launch MSRP of $1088.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent, if narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon E-2124 across all six Cinebench tests. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 81 against the Opteron’s 80, a 1.3% difference. This is the only test where the delta exceeds 1%. All other tests show a 0.9% gap. In multi-core tests, the Xeon scores 577 vs 572 in R15, 2408 vs 2386 in R20, and 5734 vs 5683 in R23. Single-core results are 81 vs 80 in R15, 339 vs 336 in R20, and 809 vs 802 in R23. The pattern is clear: the Xeon’s higher clock speeds (3.30/4.30 GHz vs 2.50/3.40 GHz) and newer architecture provide a slight edge in every scenario. Notably, the Opteron’s 16 cores do not help it close the gap in multi-core tests, suggesting that Cinebench’s scaling does not favor its modular Piledriver design. Both processors sit at the 40th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers. The Xeon’s average benchmark score is 1658, while the Opteron’s is 1643. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4770HQ (avg score 1660, delta -0.1%) and Intel Core i5-4670K (1656, delta 0.2%). The Opteron’s rivals include the Intel Core i7-5700HQ (1645, delta -0.1%) and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G (1640, delta 0.2%). These rival comparisons reinforce that both CPUs perform in the same general tier, despite their architectural differences.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6380 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2124 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the Opteron 6380 win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Intel Xeon E-2124 winning all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core variants).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Opteron 6380 has a higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon E-2124 offers 42.7 GB/s. The Opteron uses quad-channel DDR3, while the Xeon uses dual-channel DDR4.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 includes UHD Graphics P630. The AMD Opteron 6380 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the clock speed advantage?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The AMD Opteron 6380 runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 has an average benchmark score of 1658, while the AMD Opteron 6380 scores 1643. Both sit at the 40th percentile among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E-2124 wins in every measured category. Its 0.9% to 1.3% margins in Cinebench tests make it the superior choice for multi-core rendering workloads like those in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The Xeon’s single-core performance is also ahead, making it better suited for lightly-threaded applications where single-thread speed matters. The Opteron 6380, despite its 16-core count, does not win a single test. However, the Opteron does offer features that the Xeon lacks: a quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth versus the Xeon’s 42.7 GB/s, and a larger transistor count (2,400 million vs unspecified for the Xeon). These could theoretically benefit memory-bandwidth-intensive workloads not represented in Cinebench. The Opteron’s PCIe Gen 2 interface, while older, may be sufficient for certain legacy peripherals. The Xeon’s integrated graphics provide a functional advantage for systems that require display output without a discrete GPU. In terms of production status, both are end-of-life, so neither offers a future upgrade path. For users building a new system today, the Xeon E-2124’s superior benchmark performance makes it the logical choice. For those maintaining an existing dual-socket G34 platform, the Opteron 6380 remains a viable, if slower, option in these tests. The data shows the Xeon winning 6 out of 6 benchmarks; the Opteron’s wins are zero. The practical takeaway is that core count alone does not guarantee performance, and the newer Intel architecture delivers better results in these specific workloads.