AMD Opteron 6386 SE vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD part offers four times the physical core count.

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

A: Across all three Cinebench versions, the AMD Opteron 6386 SE edges out the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 by small margins. In Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD scores 100 versus Intel's 99 (1% delta). In R20, AMD scores 417 versus 416 (0.2% delta). In R23, AMD scores 994 versus 991 (0.3% delta).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has an average benchmark score of 2038, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 scores 2030. That is a difference of only 8 points, placing both processors at the 45th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor supports faster PCIe connectivity?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the AMD Opteron 6386 SE only supports PCIe Gen 2. Intel's implementation provides newer-generation interconnect bandwidth.

Q: What memory configurations do the two support?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE supports DDR3 memory in a quad-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel arrangement with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor was released more recently?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 was released on 2015-10-18, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE was released on 2012-11-04. Intel's chip launched nearly three years later and uses a different manufacturing process.

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers an unambiguous verdict: the AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins every single head-to-head test in this comparison. Out of six Cinebench benchmarks, AMD takes all six victories. The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins zero. However, the margins are extraordinarily tight. The largest delta is just 1% (Cinebench R15 single-core), and most deltas sit at 0.4% or lower.

For workloads that rely on multicore rendering, the AMD Opteron 6386 SE leads in Cinebench R15 multicore with 710 versus 707, in R20 multicore with 2959 versus 2948, and in R23 multicore with 7047 versus 7020. These are consistent, if narrow, wins. For single-core tasks, the AMD part also leads across all three Cinebench versions, though the differences range from only 0.2% to 1%.

The data suggests that despite its 16-core versus 4-core hardware advantage, the Opteron 6386 SE does not decisively outrun the Xeon E3-1240 v5 in these specific workloads. The Xeon's higher base clock (3.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) and boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.50 GHz), combined with its newer 14 nm process, helps it close the gap that the core-count disparity would normally create.

The practical verdict is that neither chip offers a meaningful performance advantage in Cinebench workloads. The AMD part wins on paper across all tests, but the deltas are so small that they fall within run-to-run variance. Users choosing between these two should base their decision on other factors, such as platform features, memory channel support, and PCIe generation, since raw benchmark performance is essentially a tie.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Opteron 6386 SE's biggest win comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 100 versus the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5's 99, a 1% delta. This is the only test where the margin reaches a full percentage point. Elsewhere, the AMD lead shrinks to 0.4% in three multicore tests.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, AMD scores 710 against Intel's 707, a 0.4% delta. The same 0.4% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, with AMD at 2959 and Intel at 2948. Cinebench R23 multicore also shows a 0.4% delta, with AMD at 7047 and Intel at 7020.

The single-core results in the newer Cinebench versions are even closer. In R20 single-core, AMD scores 417 versus Intel's 416, a 0.2% delta. In R23 single-core, AMD scores 994 versus Intel's 991, a 0.3% delta.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, AMD's 2038 edges out Intel's 2030 by 8 points. The nearest rival for the AMD chip is the Intel Core i7-7700T with an average score of 2039 (0% delta), while the nearest rival for the Intel Xeon is the Intel Core i7-5775R with 2031 (-0.1% delta). Both processors sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs.

The pattern is clear: the AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins every test, but the magnitude of its victory never exceeds 1%. The Intel chip's architectural efficiency compensates for its much lower core count.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ dramatically. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE provides 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 provides 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds also favor Intel: the Xeon runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, versus the Opteron's 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost.

Thermal design power heavily favors Intel. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 has an 80 W TDP, while the Opteron 6386 SE draws 140 W. This 60 W difference has implications for cooling requirements and operating density.

Sockets and platforms are entirely different. AMD uses Socket G34, while Intel uses Socket 1151. Memory support diverges: AMD supports DDR3 only with quad-channel bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while Intel supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with dual-channel bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. PCIe capability favors Intel, which offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), versus AMD's Gen 2.

Physical characteristics differ substantially. The AMD chip uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries, contains 2,400 million transistors, and has a die size of 2x 315 mm². The Intel chip uses a 14 nm process from Intel, contains 1,750 million transistors, and has a die size of 122 mm².

Cache layouts differ by design philosophy. AMD's cache is organized as 768 KB L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die. Intel's cache is 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

Both processors lack integrated graphics, target the server/workstation segment, and are end-of-life products. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Opteron 6386 SE is built on the Piledriver architecture with the codename Abu Dhabi. It belongs to the Opteron 6000 series and uses a 32 nm process node at GlobalFoundries. The chip contains 2,400 million transistors spread across a dual-die design with each die measuring 315 mm².

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 uses the Skylake architecture with the codename Skylake-DT. It belongs to the Xeon E3 generation and uses a 14 nm process node at Intel. The chip contains 1,750 million transistors on a single 122 mm² die.

The manufacturing process gap is significant: 32 nm versus 14 nm. This explains how Intel achieves comparable benchmark scores with far fewer cores and lower power consumption. The newer process allows higher clock speeds at lower TDP.

Cache architecture reveals different design strategies. AMD's Piledriver design uses module-based L2 cache (2 MB per module) and per-die L3 cache (8 MB per die). Intel's Skylake design uses per-core L1 and L2 caches with a shared 8 MB L3. AMD's total L1 cache is 768 KB, while Intel's per-core L1 is 64 KB.

Memory controllers differ in channel count and bandwidth. AMD's quad-channel DDR3 controller provides 51.2 GB/s, while Intel's dual-channel controller (supporting both DDR3 and DDR4) provides 34.1 GB/s. The AMD design offers higher theoretical memory bandwidth, though the Intel design offers newer memory technology options.

PCIe implementation differs by generation. AMD provides Gen 2 connectivity, while Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. This gives Intel newer interconnect technology for expansion devices.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect the architectural differences: AMD's dual-die design with 2,400 million transistors versus Intel's monolithic die with 1,750 million transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins every benchmark in this comparison, making it the outright leader in Cinebench performance across all versions. Its strongest margin comes in Cinebench R15 single-core (1% delta), and it maintains a 0.4% edge in all three multicore tests. For users running Cinebench-based rendering workloads, the AMD chip provides slightly higher scores across the board.

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins in efficiency categories. Its 80 W TDP versus AMD's 140 W means significantly lower power consumption. Its 14 nm process and single-die design offer a more compact footprint. The Intel chip also supports newer memory technology (DDR4 in addition to DDR3) and provides PCIe Gen 3 connectivity.

For memory-bandwidth-bound workloads, the AMD Opteron 6386 SE's quad-channel DDR3 setup delivers 51.2 GB/s, which is 50% higher than Intel's 34.1 GB/s dual-channel configuration. This could benefit applications that stream large datasets.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 has higher base and boost clocks (3.50/3.90 GHz versus 2.80/3.50 GHz). While the benchmark results show AMD winning single-core tests by tiny margins, the Intel chip's clock advantage suggests it may handle lightly threaded tasks with lower latency in real-world scenarios.

The data shows a clear split: AMD wins on raw Cinebench scores and memory bandwidth, while Intel wins on power efficiency, process technology, and platform modernity. Given the negligible performance deltas, the Intel chip's operational advantages make it the more compelling choice for most server deployments. The AMD chip's victory is real but marginal, and it comes with a 75% higher TDP.