AMD Opteron 6386 SE vs Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 leads with an average benchmark score of 2043, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE trails marginally at 2038. This 0.2% gap is the difference between the two in aggregate performance.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 scores 7065 against the AMD Opteron 6386 SE's 7047, a 0.3% advantage for Intel. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where Intel's 2967 beats AMD's 2959 by 0.3%.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark table shows Intel winning all six tests. The closest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where Intel scores 418 versus AMD's 417, a 0.2% lead. AMD's best result is a tie in Cinebench R15 single-core at 100 points each.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration difference?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 has only 4 cores but 8 threads via Hyper-Threading. Despite having four times the physical cores, AMD's multi-core scores are nearly identical to Intel's.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for these processors?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 had a launch MSRP of $350, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE had a launch MSRP of $1392.

Q: How do their memory subsystems differ?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE supports quad-channel DDR3 with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 uses dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 is the superior processor in nearly every measurable way, but the margins are razor-thin. Across all six Cinebench tests, Intel wins with deltas ranging from 0.2% to 0.3%. The average benchmark scores are 2043 for Intel versus 2038 for AMD, a gap of just 0.2%. When two processors are this close in actual output, the decision should be driven by platform considerations, not raw performance.

For workloads where single-threaded response time is critical, the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 edges ahead in Cinebench R20 single-core (418 vs 417) and R23 single-core (997 vs 994). This makes it the pick for lightly threaded server tasks, database queries, or any application that cannot fully utilize many cores. The 4-core/8-thread design with a 4.00 GHz boost clock provides snappier per-thread execution.

For workloads that are heavily multi-threaded, the AMD Opteron 6386 SE's 16 physical cores deliver nearly identical throughput to Intel's 8 threads. The 7065 vs 7047 Cinebench R23 multi-core result shows AMD's wide-core approach competing effectively. However, given that AMD wins zero benchmarks, the choice for multi-core work is still Intel, just by a hair. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE's only real advantage lies in its quad-channel memory interface, which offers 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth versus Intel's 34.1 GB/s — but this does not translate into a benchmark win in the tested Cinebench suite.

The verdict: if you must choose between these two end-of-life server parts, the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 wins on every benchmark and at a fraction of the launch MSRP ($350 vs $1392). The AMD Opteron 6386 SE is not a competitive alternative in this head-to-head, despite its massive core count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking aspect of this comparison is how close every single test result is. The largest delta across all six benchmarks is a mere 0.3%. This suggests that the two processors are effectively performance equals in Cinebench, despite radically different architectures.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 takes Cinebench R15 with a score of 712 against AMD's 710, a 0.3% win. In Cinebench R20, Intel scores 2967 versus 2959, another 0.3% margin. The most demanding test, Cinebench R23 multi-core, shows Intel at 7065 and AMD at 7047, again 0.3% apart. This consistency across three generations of Cinebench indicates that the performance relationship is stable regardless of workload intensity.

Single-core results are even tighter. Cinebench R15 single-core records a perfect tie at 100 points for both chips. Cinebench R20 single-core gives Intel the win at 418 versus 417, a 0.2% edge. Cinebench R23 single-core follows with Intel at 997 and AMD at 994, a 0.3% difference. The pattern is unmistakable: Intel holds a marginal but consistent lead in every category.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story. Intel's 2043 average sits just 0.2% above AMD's 2038. In the nearestRivals data, the AMD Opteron 6386 SE is listed as a rival to the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 with a deltaPct of 0.3%, meaning Intel is 0.3% faster on average. This confirms that the head-to-head results are not anomalies but reflect the true performance relationship.

None of these deltas would be perceptible in real-world use. A 0.3% difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core is within run-to-run variance. However, for a benchmark database, the winner is unambiguous: Intel wins all six tests, AMD wins none.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge dramatically in their fundamental specifications. The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 packs 4 cores with 8 threads, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE offers 16 cores but only 16 threads — no simultaneous multithreading. Clock speeds favor Intel: 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost versus AMD's 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost.

Thermal design power tells a story of efficiency. Intel's TDP is 80 watts, while AMD's is 140 watts. This 60-watt difference means AMD consumes 75% more power for essentially identical benchmark scores. The Intel part achieves this on a 14 nm process node, compared to AMD's 32 nm node. Intel's die size is 122 mm² with 1,750 million transistors, while AMD's is two dies of 315 mm² each with 2,400 million transistors.

Memory support differs significantly. Intel supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with a dual-channel bus delivering 34.1 GB/s. AMD supports only DDR3 but uses a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe generations also differ: Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while AMD offers Gen 2 without a lane count specified.

The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 includes integrated graphics with HD Graphics P530, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE has no integrated graphics. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1151 versus AMD Socket G34. The release dates are nearly three years apart, with Intel launching on 2015-10-18 and AMD on 2012-11-04.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. Intel's Skylake architecture (codename Skylake-DT) is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It uses a monolithic die of 122 mm² containing 1,750 million transistors. The cache hierarchy is per-core: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. This design favors low latency and high single-thread efficiency.

AMD's Piledriver architecture (codename Abu Dhabi) uses a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The chip comprises two 315 mm² dies, totaling 2,400 million transistors. Cache is organized by module: 768 KB L1 total, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die. This modular design is aimed at maximizing core count at the expense of per-thread performance.

The core count disparity is the most obvious architectural difference. AMD's 16 cores are Piledriver modules, which share certain execution resources between pairs of cores. This explains why 16 physical cores do not outperform 4 Skylake cores with 8 threads in Cinebench. The Intel architecture's superior instruction handling and higher clock speeds compensate for the 12-core deficit.

Memory architecture reinforces the split. Intel's dual-channel memory controller supports DDR3 and DDR4, offering flexibility for server upgrades. AMD's quad-channel controller is limited to DDR3 but provides 50% more theoretical bandwidth. For memory-bound workloads, AMD's wider channel interface could be beneficial, though the Cinebench results do not reflect this advantage.

Both chips are end-of-life products. The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 belongs to the Xeon E3 generation, while AMD's Opteron 6386 SE is part of the Opteron 6000 series. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 wins in every benchmark test, so its case is straightforward. It is the better choice for any Cinebench workload, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. Its 80-watt TDP makes it more suitable for dense server deployments where power and cooling are constrained. The integrated HD Graphics P530 provides a fallback for basic display output without a discrete GPU. The dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 support offers memory flexibility. The higher base and boost clocks (3.60 GHz and 4.00 GHz) give it an edge in latency-sensitive tasks.

The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has no benchmark wins, but its specification sheet suggests where it could plausibly excel. The quad-channel memory interface with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth is its strongest asset. For workloads that stream large datasets — such as database scans, big-data analytics, or in-memory processing — the extra memory bandwidth could offset the 0.3% Cinebench deficit. The 16 physical cores might also be preferable for highly parallel workloads that do not benefit from simultaneous multithreading and scale linearly with core count. However, the benchmark data does not confirm these advantages, as Cinebench is the only tested workload.

In practical terms, the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 is the clear winner for anyone running Cinebench or similar rendering workloads. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE's appeal would have to rest on its memory bandwidth and core count for non-Cinebench server tasks. But within the data available, Intel wins all six head-to-head tests, holds a 0.2% average benchmark lead, and does so at a lower launch MSRP. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE's higher launch MSRP ($1392 versus $350) and higher TDP (140 watts versus 80 watts) further disadvantage it. There is no scenario in this dataset where the AMD part is the recommended choice.