AMD Opteron 6386 SE vs Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 Comparison
AMD Opteron 6386 SE
Xeon E3-1270 v5
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Opteron 6386 SE vs Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5
# Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 vs AMD Opteron 6386 SE
The data presents a curious matchup: a 4-core Intel server chip from 2015 going head-to-head against a 16-core AMD behemoth from 2012. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 wins every single round, but the margins are razor-thin—never exceeding 0.5%. The Opteron 6386 SE, with four times the core count and a 140W TDP, essentially ties the 80W Intel part in every workload. The average benchmark score tells the same story: 2048 for Intel versus 2038 for AMD, a 0.5% gap that lands them in the 46th and 45th percentiles of all CPUs respectively. This is not a contest of overwhelming superiority; it is a lesson in architectural efficiency versus brute core count.
The Verdict
The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 is the clear pick for anyone prioritizing power efficiency and modern platform features. It delivers equal or better performance than the Opteron in every measured test while drawing 60W less power (80W versus 140W TDP). The data shows Intel winning all six head-to-head benchmarks, including a 0.5% edge in Cinebench R23 multi-core (7082 vs 7047) and a 0.5% advantage in single-core (999 vs 994). The Opteron's 16 cores and 16 threads provide no measurable multi-threaded advantage over Intel's 4 cores and 8 threads—a striking result given the 4x core disparity.
The AMD Opteron 6386 SE only makes sense if the system already uses Socket G34 infrastructure or if the platform's quad-channel memory bus (51.2 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s) is critical. However, benchmark results indicate that raw memory bandwidth does not translate into Cinebench wins. The Opteron's percentile ranking of 45 versus Intel's 46 confirms these are near-equivalent performers, but the Opteron requires far more power and a larger physical footprint (2x 315 mm² dies versus 122 mm²). The verdict is straightforward: the Xeon wins on efficiency, platform modernity, and every benchmark; the Opteron wins on raw core count and memory bandwidth, but those advantages do not materialize in actual scores.
Architecture Differences
The fundamental gap is generational. Intel's Xeon E3-1270 v5 uses the Skylake-DT architecture on a 14 nm process, while AMD's Opteron 6386 SE relies on the Piledriver architecture on GlobalFoundries' 32 nm node. That process difference explains much of the efficiency gap: Intel packs 1,750 million transistors into 122 mm², while AMD spreads 2,400 million transistors across two 315 mm² dies. The Opteron is a dual-die design, each die with its own 8 MB of L3 cache, whereas the Xeon has a single 8 MB shared L3 pool. Cache organization differs fundamentally: Intel allocates 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, while AMD uses 768 KB total L1 and 2 MB L2 per module, reflecting the Piledriver's shared module design.
Clock speeds favor Intel on paper: 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost versus AMD's 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. Yet the Opteron's 16 physical cores at lower clocks nearly match the Xeon's 4 cores with Hyper-Threading at higher clocks. The memory subsystems diverge sharply: Intel supports both DDR3 and DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, while AMD is limited to DDR3 over a quad-channel bus—the Opteron's 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is 50% higher than the Xeon's 34.1 GB/s. PCIe also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Opteron is stuck on Gen 2. Both support ECC memory and both are end-of-life, but the Xeon launched in October 2015 at $339 MSRP, while the Opteron launched in November 2012 at $1392 MSRP.
Where Each One Wins
The Xeon E3-1270 v5 wins every benchmark, but the margins tell a nuanced story. In single-core tests, the Intel chip leads by 0.5% in Cinebench R20 (419 vs 417) and R23 (999 vs 994), and ties in R15 (100 vs 100). These single-threaded advantages reflect the Skylake architecture's superior instructions-per-clock and higher boost clocks. For workloads that rely on a single thread—legacy applications, certain database queries, or lightly threaded server tasks—the Xeon is consistently ahead, albeit marginally.
The Opteron's theoretical wins lie in its 16 physical cores and quad-channel memory. While Cinebench does not reward these features, the data suggests the Opteron could excel in memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios or heavily parallel workloads that scale beyond 8 threads. The 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is a genuine advantage for the Opteron, and the 16 cores could outperform the Xeon's 8 threads in applications designed to saturate many physical cores. However, the benchmark data does not include such tests—every Cinebench result shows the Opteron trailing by 0.4% to 0.5%. The Xeon wins on efficiency (80W TDP versus 140W), platform modernity (PCIe Gen 3, DDR4 support, 14 nm), and every measured performance metric.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron has four times the physical core count.
Q: Does the Opteron's 16-core advantage translate into better multi-core benchmark scores?
A: No. The Intel Xeon wins all multi-core tests: Cinebench R15 (713 vs 710, +0.4%), R20 (2974 vs 2959, +0.5%), and R23 (7082 vs 7047, +0.5%). The Opteron's cores do not produce a multi-threaded win.
Q: What is the TDP difference between these chips?
A: The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 has an 80W TDP, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE has a 140W TDP. The Xeon delivers equal or better performance at nearly half the power envelope.
Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?
A: The AMD Opteron supports quad-channel DDR3 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon supports dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Opteron's memory bandwidth is 50% higher.
Q: What are the launch MSRPs of these processors?
A: The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 had a launch MSRP of $339, and the AMD Opteron 6386 SE had a launch MSRP of $1392.
Q: How do these chips rank against all other CPUs?
A: The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 is in the 46th percentile, and the AMD Opteron 6386 SE is in the 45th percentile. They are nearly identical in overall standing.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The six Cinebench results form a pattern of consistent but narrow Intel victories. Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 713 against the Opteron's 710—a 0.4% delta. The single-core R15 test is a perfect tie at 100 points each, meaning neither architecture has a single-threaded advantage in that particular workload. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon extends its multi-core lead to 2974 versus 2959 (0.5%), and its single-core lead to 419 versus 417 (0.5%). The R23 tests repeat this exact 0.5% margin: multi-core 7082 vs 7047, single-core 999 vs 994.
The largest absolute gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon leads by 35 points. The smallest difference is the single-core R15 tie, followed by the 2-point and 5-point single-core gaps in R20 and R23. Across all tests, the average benchmark scores are 2048 for Intel and 2038 for AMD—a 10-point difference that places the Xeon in the 46th percentile and the Opteron in the 45th. The Xeon wins 6 head-to-head benchmarks; the Opteron wins none. Yet the consistency of the 0.5% margins suggests these are two very different architectures that coincidentally produce nearly identical Cinebench results. The Xeon's higher clock speeds and modern core design offset the Opteron's massive core count. If the Opteron's 16 cores could scale perfectly, it should theoretically dominate multi-threaded tests; the data shows it cannot, indicating that Piledriver's module-based design and lower clock speeds limit its real-world throughput.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. Core and thread counts: Intel has 4 cores and 8 threads; AMD has 16 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds: Intel runs at 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost; AMD runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. TDP: Intel draws 80W; AMD draws 140W. Sockets differ entirely: Intel uses Socket 1151, while AMD uses Socket G34. Architecture and process node: Intel is Skylake on 14 nm; AMD is Piledriver on 32 nm. Transistor count and die size: Intel has 1,750 million transistors on 122 mm²; AMD has 2,400 million transistors across 2x 315 mm² dies.
Cache organization is fundamentally different: Intel provides 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core with 8 MB shared L3; AMD provides 768 KB total L1 and 2 MB L2 per module with 8 MB L3 per die. Memory support: Intel supports DDR3 and DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth; AMD supports only DDR3 on a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. PCIe: Intel offers Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes; AMD offers Gen 2. Release dates: Intel launched October 2015; AMD launched November 2012. Launch MSRP: Intel at $339; AMD at $1392. Both support ECC memory, both are end-of-life, and neither has integrated graphics or an unlocked multiplier. The specification sheet reads like a generational clash: Intel's modern, efficient design versus AMD's older, wider design—and the benchmark data shows the modern design wins by a hair in every test.