AMD Opteron 6386 SE vs Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins every single recorded head-to-head test against the AMD Opteron 6386 SE. Across six Cinebench runs, spanning R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core workloads, the Intel part takes all six victories. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE records zero wins in this comparison.

That said, the margins are remarkably narrow. The largest delta between the two in any test is 1.4%, which appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 multi-core. The smallest margin is 1% in Cinebench R15 single-core. These are not blowout victories; they are consistent but slim advantages for the Intel chip.

For use-case selection, the practical takeaway is that neither processor offers a decisive edge in any particular workload category. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is the safer pick for both lightly threaded tasks (where its single-core scores edge ahead) and heavily threaded workloads (where its multi-core scores also lead). But the Opteron 6386 SE is not far behind in any scenario. If the workload is purely Cinebench-style rendering, the data shows the Intel part wins, but the margin is small enough that other system factors, such as motherboard features or memory configuration, could easily tip the balance in a real deployment.

The percentile rankings reinforce this picture. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 sits at the 46th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE sits at the 45th percentile. That one-point gap is consistent with the narrow benchmark deltas. Both processors occupy essentially the same tier of overall performance, with the Intel chip holding a slight edge across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and different manufacturing eras. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is built on the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-H variant, on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It packs 2,300 million transistors into a 171 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,400 million transistors spread across two 315 mm² dies.

Core counts differ sharply. The Intel part has 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on hyper-threading to double its logical thread count. The AMD part has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no SMT equivalent. Despite having four times the physical cores, the Opteron cannot translate that into a benchmark advantage; its multi-core scores trail the Intel quad-core in every recorded test. This reflects the architectural efficiency gap between Skylake and Piledriver, where the newer Intel design extracts far more work per core.

Cache layouts also differ. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has 768 KB of L1 cache total, 2 MB of L2 cache per module, and 8 MB of L3 cache per die. The Opteron's cache is organized around its module-based Piledriver design, which pairs two cores per module and shares certain resources.

Memory support diverges significantly. The Intel part supports both DDR3 and DDR4 across a dual-channel memory bus, delivering 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part supports only DDR3 across a quad-channel bus, delivering 51.2 GB/s. The Opteron has a substantial memory bandwidth advantage on paper, but the benchmark results show that this does not translate into better Cinebench performance.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE offers PCIe Gen 2 without a lane count specified in the data. The newer PCIe standard on the Intel side provides more bandwidth per lane, which matters for storage and expansion cards.

The Intel part includes integrated graphics, specifically Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the AMD part has no integrated graphics. This makes the Xeon E3-1585 v5 a more self-contained option for systems that do not require a discrete GPU. Both processors support ECC memory, which is expected for server and workstation parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results show a consistent pattern of narrow Intel victories. Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 scores 720 against the AMD Opteron 6386 SE's 710, a 1.4% advantage. In R15 single-core, the Intel part scores 101 against 100, a 1% edge.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test shows the Intel part at 3001 versus the Opteron's 2959, again a 1.4% difference. The single-core test shows 423 versus 417, also 1.4%. The consistency of these deltas suggests a stable, workload-independent performance relationship between the two chips.

Cinebench R23 continues the pattern. The multi-core result is 7146 for the Intel part versus 7047 for the AMD part, a 1.4% gap. The single-core result is 1008 versus 994, also 1.4%. Across all six tests, the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins by either 1% or 1.4%, with no test exceeding that range.

The average benchmark scores in the database show a similar narrow spread. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 has an average benchmark score of 2067, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE has 2038. That is a 29-point difference, which places the Intel part just ahead of the Opteron in overall standing. For context, the Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G at 2059 (0.4% behind), the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 at 2076 (0.4% ahead), the Intel Core i3-10105T at 2058 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core i7-8705G at 2058 (0.5% behind). The Opteron's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-7700T at 2039 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-3960X at 2037 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 4500U at 2035 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Xeon E-2124G at 2034 (0.2% behind).

In short, the head-to-head data shows that the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, but the margins are small enough that the Opteron 6386 SE remains competitive in absolute terms.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins every single-core test recorded. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 101 versus 100 for the AMD Opteron 6386 SE. In R20 single-core, it scores 423 versus 417. In R23 single-core, it scores 1008 versus 994.

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 also wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 720 versus 710. In R20 multi-core, it scores 3001 versus 2959. In R23 multi-core, it scores 7146 versus 7047. All deltas are 1.4%.

Q: Does the Opteron's 16 cores help it in any benchmark?

A: No. Despite having 16 cores against the Intel part's 4 cores, the AMD Opteron 6386 SE trails in all six recorded Cinebench tests. The Intel processor wins every multi-core test, indicating that its architectural efficiency more than compensates for the core count disadvantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE supports quad-channel DDR3 memory with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 supports dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s. The Opteron has higher theoretical bandwidth, but this does not produce a benchmark win in the recorded data.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 and the AMD Opteron 6386 SE support ECC memory, making them suitable for server and workstation applications where data integrity is critical.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 has integrated graphics, specifically Iris Pro Graphics P580. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has no integrated graphics,DSML so a discrete GPU would be required for display output.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field:

• Cores: Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 has 4 cores; AMD Opteron 6386 SE has 16 cores
• Threads: Intel has 8 threads; AMD has 16 threads
• Base clock: Intel runs at 3.50 GHz; AMD runs at 2.80 GHz
• Boost clock: Intel boosts to 3.90 GHz; AMD boosts to 3.50 GHz
• TDP: Intel is rated at 65 W; AMD is rated at 140 W
• Socket: Intel uses BGA 1440; AMD uses Socket G34
• Architecture: Intel uses Skylake; AMD uses Piledriver
• Process node: Intel uses 14 nm; AMD uses 32 nm
• Foundry: Intel fabricates its own chips; AMD uses GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: Intel has 2,300 million; AMD has 2,400 million
• Die size: Intel uses a single 171 mm² die; AMD uses two 315 mm² dies
• L1 cache: Intel has 64 KB per core; AMD has 768 KB total
• L2 cache: Intel has 256 KB per core; AMD has 2 MB per module
• L3 cache: Intel has 8 MB shared; AMD has 8 MB per die
• Memory support: Intel supports DDR3 and DDR4; AMD supports DDR3 only
• Memory bus: Intel is dual-channel; AMD is quad-channel
• Memory bandwidth: Intel provides 34.1 GB/s; AMD provides 51.2 GB/s
• PCIe: Intel has Gen 3 with 16 lanes; AMD has Gen 2
• Integrated graphics: Intel has Iris Pro Graphics P580; AMD has none
• Release date: Intel launched on 2016-05-30; AMD launched on 2012-11-04
• Launch MSRP: Intel was $556; AMD was $1392

The Intel part is newer, smaller, more power-efficient, and offers a more modern feature set. The AMD part is older, larger, consumes more power, but offers more cores, more memory channels, and higher memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average benchmark score (2067 versus 2038), and sits at a higher percentile ranking (46th versus 45th). For anyone choosing between these two processors based purely on Cinebench performance, the Intel part is the correct pick.

The AMD Opteron 6386 SE does bring legitimate advantages to specific use cases. Its quad-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth could matter for memory-bound workloads that are not represented in these benchmarks. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide a higher physical core count, which may be relevant for workloads that scale with core count in ways that Cinebench does not capture. But within the scope of the recorded data, those advantages do not manifest as benchmark wins.

The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 also offers practical benefits beyond raw performance. Its 65 W TDP is less than half the Opteron's 140 W, which matters for power-constrained environments. Its integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic configurations. Its support for both DDR3 and DDR4 provides flexibility in memory selection. Its PCIe Gen 3 support offers faster connectivity for modern expansion cards.

The AMD Opteron 6386 SE, meanwhile, remains a viable option only in scenarios where its specific strengths are essential. Its quad-channel memory bandwidth could be a deciding factor for certain server workloads. Its higher core count may appeal to environments that run many parallel threads with minimal inter-thread communication. Its launch MSRP of $1392 was substantially higher than the Intel part's $556, though pricing is not a factor in the benchmark data.

For users building a system today from the database's perspective, the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is the better-engineered product. It achieves superior benchmark results with fewer cores, lower power draw, a newer process node, and a more modern feature set. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE is not without merit, but the data does not support choosing it over the Intel part for Cinebench-style workloads. The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins on every measured axis, and the AMD Opteron 6386 SE only makes sense for specialized deployments that value its memory bandwidth and core count over the benchmark results recorded here.