AMD Opteron 6380 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous in one direction: the AMD Opteron 6380 wins every single head-to-head comparison across all six Cinebench tests. The margins are consistent, ranging from a 2.1% to 2.5% advantage over the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5. However, the story is far more nuanced than simple victory counts. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 operates at a 25 W TDP, a strikingly low power envelope for a server processor, while the Opteron 6380 consumes 115 W. This 90 W difference is the elephant in the room. The data suggests two vastly different design philosophies: the Intel part is a low-power efficiency play, while the AMD part is a raw-throughput brute-force approach. The verdict for a buyer depends entirely on which metric matters more: the Opteron offers a slight, consistent performance edge, but the Xeon delivers that performance at less than a quarter of the power draw. For dense, power-constrained server environments, the Xeon's efficiency profile is compelling. For existing Socket G34 platforms where power is less of a concern, the Opteron's extra score on every benchmark makes it the straightforward performance pick. The Opteron's 40th percentile ranking versus the Xeon's 39th percentile confirms its marginally higher standing in the broader CPU landscape, but both sit in the lower-middle range of all processors.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide is stark. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 is built on a 14 nm process by Intel, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads. It uses the Skylake-DT architecture with a die size of 122 mm² and 1,750 million transistors. In contrast, the AMD Opteron 6380 uses GlobalFoundries' 32 nm process, packing 16 cores and 16 threads across a dual-die design with a combined die size of 2x 315 mm² and 2,400 million transistors. The process node difference explains the massive TDP disparity: 14 nm versus 32 nm is a generational leap in efficiency. The cache layouts differ fundamentally as well. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Opteron has 768 KB of L1 total, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron's architecture is module-based, where pairs of cores share L2 and other resources, which is a key reason it has 16 threads but 16 cores (no SMT). The Xeon's implementation of simultaneous multithreading allows 8 threads from 4 cores, while the Opteron's design is simpler per-thread but relies on raw core count. Memory support also diverges: the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with a dual-channel bus delivering 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Opteron is limited to DDR3 but uses a quad-channel bus for 59.7 GB/s — nearly double the bandwidth. PCIe generations differ too: the Xeon has Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Opteron uses Gen 2. Both support ECC memory, but the Opteron's memory subsystem is clearly designed for higher bandwidth workloads, whereas the Xeon's is more modest and flexible.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the AMD Opteron 6380 wins everywhere. It leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core (572 vs 560), R15 single-core (80 vs 78), R20 multi-core (2386 vs 2336), R20 single-core (336 vs 329), R23 multi-core (5683 vs 5564), and R23 single-core (802 vs 785). The consistency of these wins is notable — the Opteron is ahead by roughly 2% across the board, regardless of workload or benchmark generation. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins in no measured benchmark, but its real advantage lies outside raw scores. The 25 W TDP is the standout differentiator. In a server context, this enables higher core densities per socket, lower cooling requirements, and potentially lower total system power draw. The Xeon's support for DDR4 memory is another point in its favor for modern platform compatibility. The Opteron's wins are purely performance-based: higher scores in every test, plus significantly higher memory bandwidth (59.7 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s) and more than double the core count (16 vs 4). For workloads that scale with cores and memory throughput, the Opteron's architecture provides a theoretical advantage that the benchmark scores only partially capture. However, the benchmark gaps are small — 2.1% to 2.5% — which means in real-world applications, the difference is likely negligible unless the workload is highly sensitive to the specific architectural features like memory bandwidth or core count.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Opteron 6380 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 572 in Cinebench R15, 2386 in R20, and 5683 in R23, compared to the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5's 560, 2336, and 5564 respectively. The margin is consistently 2.1%.

Q: How do the single-core results compare?

A: The Opteron also leads in single-core tests, though by a slightly larger margin in R15. It scores 80 versus 78 in R15 (2.5% lead), 336 versus 329 in R20 (2.1% lead), and 802 versus 785 in R23 (2.1% lead).

Q: Is the power consumption difference significant?

A: Yes, dramatically so. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 has a TDP of 25 W, while the AMD Opteron 6380 is rated at 115 W. This is a 90 W difference, which is substantial for server deployments where power and cooling are major operational costs.

Q: What memory bandwidth do these processors support?

A: The Opteron has a quad-channel DDR3 memory bus providing 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon has a dual-channel bus supporting both DDR3 and DDR4, delivering 34.1 GB/s. The Opteron's bandwidth is 75% higher.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to other processors in the database?

A: The Opteron 6380 sits at the 40th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1643. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 is at the 39th percentile with an average score of 1609. Their nearest rivals differ: the Xeon's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-10610U (1611, 0.1% behind), while the Opteron's is the Intel Core i7-5700HQ (1645, 0.1% behind).

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Opteron 6380 has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron has four times the physical cores, but the Xeon uses hyperthreading to double its thread count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head benchmark results tell a remarkably consistent story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Opteron 6380 scores 572 against the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5's 560, a 2.1% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the Opteron ahead at 80 versus 78, a 2.5% margin — the largest gap in any test. Moving to R20, the multi-core result is 2386 for AMD versus 2336 for Intel, again a 2.1% difference. The R20 single-core test shows 336 versus 329, also 2.1%. The R23 multi-core test has the Opteron at 5683 and the Xeon at 5564, maintaining the 2.1% delta. Finally, R23 single-core shows 802 versus 785, another 2.1% margin. The pattern is striking: regardless of the workload type (single vs multi-core) or the benchmark version (R15, R20, R23), the Opteron's advantage stays pinned at approximately 2%. This consistency suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-dependent. The Opteron's higher base clock (2.50 GHz vs 2.10 GHz) and boost clock (3.40 GHz vs 3.20 GHz) likely contribute to this across-the-board edge. Notably, the Opteron achieves these wins despite running on an older 32 nm process versus Intel's 14 nm. The Xeon's lower clocks and lower power envelope mean it simply cannot match the Opteron's raw throughput per test, even though its per-core efficiency is likely superior given the massive TDP difference.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals where these two processors diverge most sharply. The core count is the most obvious difference: the Opteron has 16 cores, the Xeon has 4. Threads follow suit: 16 versus 8. Clock speeds favor the Opteron, with a 2.50 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost versus the Xeon's 2.10 GHz and 3.20 GHz. The TDP difference is enormous: 115 W for AMD, 25 W for Intel. Process technology separates them by a generation: 32 nm for the Opteron, 14 nm for the Xeon. The Opteron uses two dies of 315 mm² each (630 mm² total) with 2,400 million transistors; the Xeon uses a single 122 mm² die with 1,750 million transistors. Cache configurations are fundamentally different: the Opteron has 768 KB L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die; the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the Xeon handles both DDR3 and DDR4 over a dual-channel bus at 34.1 GB/s; the Opteron is DDR3-only but uses quad-channel at 59.7 GB/s. PCIe generations also differ: the Xeon has Gen 3 with 16 lanes, the Opteron has Gen 2. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1151 versus AMD Socket G34. Release dates are separated by three years: the Opteron launched in 2012, the Xeon in 2015. The launch MSRP reflects their positioning: the Opteron was $1088, the Xeon was $278. Both are end-of-life and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Opteron's part number is OS6380WKTGGHK, the Xeon's is SR2LN.