AMD Opteron 6282 SE

The AMD Opteron 6282 SE is a 16-core, 16-thread server processor from the Bulldozer generation (codenamed Interlagos), built on a 32 nm process for the AMD Socket G34 platform. Released in late 2011 with a launch MSRP of $1019, it is now end-of-life, but its benchmark data places it squarely within the mid-range of historical CPU performance, holding the 40th percentile against all CPUs tested. With an average benchmark score of 1569, it sits in a tight pack of rivals that includes both low-power server chips and older desktop quad-cores, making its positioning a study in how core counts and architecture age differently.

Benchmark Performance

The Opteron 6282 SE’s aggregate benchmark score of 1569 places it in a remarkably narrow competitive band. Its closest rival, the Intel Core i3-1115G4E, scores 1570, a negligible delta of -0.1%, meaning the two processors are statistically identical in overall performance despite vastly different designs. The Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 trails by a hair at 1576 (delta -0.5%), while the Opteron actually edges out the Intel Core i5-6600T (1561, delta +0.5%) and the Intel Core i5-4690S (1560, delta +0.6%). In short, the data shows a four-way tie at the 1560-1576 score range, with the Opteron neither leading nor lagging by more than a fraction of a percent in any direction.

Looking at specific workload scores, the multi-threaded results reveal the processor’s intended server role. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it posts 5427 points; in R20 multi-core, 2279; and in R15 multi-core, 546. These numbers are respectable for a 16-thread part from its era, but they do not translate into a dominant lead over the modern dual-core i3-1115G4E in the aggregate metric. The single-core results tell a different story: Cinebench R23 single-core scores 766, R20 single-core scores 321, and R15 single-core scores just 77. These are low figures, reflecting the Bulldozer architecture’s well-known weakness in lightly threaded tasks. The overall average score therefore masks a wide gap between the Opteron’s parallel throughput and its serial performance.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The split between single-thread and multi-thread performance is dramatic. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score of 5427 is roughly 7.1 times the single-core score of 766. For R20, the ratio is 2279 to 321 (about 7.1x), and for R15 it is 546 to 77 (also about 7.1x). This consistent ratio indicates that the 16 cores scale almost linearly in heavily threaded workloads, which is a positive sign for server tasks that can use all threads. However, the absolute single-core scores are low enough that any workload with a serial component will bottleneck severely. For example, a single-thread score of 77 in Cinebench R15 is far below what even entry-level modern desktop processors achieve, meaning the Opteron 6282 SE is poorly suited for interactive use or applications that cannot parallelize.

In real-world terms, this means the processor excels in batch processing, rendering, or database workloads where the software can spawn 16 threads and keep them busy. Conversely, it will feel sluggish in web browsing, office document editing, or any lightly threaded application. The data suggests a workload split: if a task can use all 16 threads, the Opteron performs roughly on par with a modern dual-core i3 in aggregate; if it cannot, performance collapses to levels that are a fraction of the competition. The 7.1x scaling factor is nearly ideal, but it starts from a very low single-thread baseline, so the practical benefit is limited to fully parallel environments.

Power and Thermals

The Opteron 6282 SE carries a TDP of 140 watts, which classifies it as a high-power server part. For its era, this was typical for a 16-core processor on a 32 nm process, but it has implications for cooling and system design. A 140W TDP requires a capable air cooler or a basic liquid cooling loop in a server chassis; standard desktop coolers designed for 65-95W parts will not suffice. The processor is not multiplier-unlocked, so overclocking is not an option to mitigate performance gaps; the 2.60 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost clocks are fixed limits. The dual-die design (2x 315 mm² die size, 2,400 million transistors) means heat is generated across two separate dies, which can complicate thermal management in dense server enclosures. The 140W figure also implies significant power draw under full load, which is a consideration for multi-socket systems common to the G34 platform. The data does not include thermal throttle behavior, but the TDP class alone suggests that adequate airflow and heatsink selection are mandatory for sustained multi-threaded workloads.

How It Compares

vs. Intel Core i3-1115G4E: The Opteron matches this modern dual-core chip almost exactly in aggregate score (1569 vs. 1570, delta -0.1%). This is a striking result: a 2011 16-core server processor is statistically tied with a 2021 laptop-class dual-core in overall benchmarks. The i3 achieves this with far fewer cores and likely lower power, but the Opteron’s multi-thread throughput is offset by its much weaker single-thread performance. For a server workload that is fully parallel, the Opteron wins; for anything else, the i3 is superior.

vs. Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3: The Xeon scores 1576, a delta of -0.5% relative to the Opteron, meaning the Opteron is slightly behind. The E5-2608L v3 is a low-power server part with fewer cores, but it manages a higher aggregate score, suggesting better per-core efficiency. In multi-threaded server tasks, the Opteron’s 16 threads may still compete, but the Xeon’s architecture is more modern and likely more efficient per watt, though the data does not provide a direct core-by-core comparison.

vs. Intel Core i5-6600T: The Opteron edges out this desktop chip by 0.5% (1561 vs. 1569). The i5-6600T is a 35W quad-core, so the Opteron’s 140W TDP buys only a marginal aggregate advantage. In single-threaded tasks, the i5-6600T will crush the Opteron, but in multi-threaded rendering or encoding, the Opteron’s 16 cores can pull ahead. The delta is so small that real-world differences are negligible, making the Opteron’s higher power draw hard to justify for desktop use.

vs. Intel Core i5-4690S: Similar to the i5-6600T, the i5-4690S scores 1560, and the Opteron leads by 0.6%. This is the largest positive delta in the rival group, but it is still under a single percentage point. The i5-4690S is a 65W quad-core from 2014, so the Opteron’s 16 threads provide only a tiny aggregate advantage. The conclusion is the same: the Opteron’s multi-thread scaling does not compensate for its weak single-thread speed in most mixed workloads.

FAQ

Q: How does the Opteron 6282 SE perform in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: It scores 5427 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is its strongest benchmark result.

Q: What is the single-core score in Cinebench R20?

A: The Cinebench R20 single-core score is 321 points, which is low compared to modern processors.

Q: Does the Opteron 6282 SE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, it supports ECC memory, and it uses DDR3 with a quad-channel memory bus providing 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the boost clock speed?

A: The base clock is 2.60 GHz and the boost clock is 3.30 GHz.

Q: How many threads does it have?

A: It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no hyper-threading.

Q: What socket does it use?

A: It uses AMD Socket G34.

Who Should Consider It

The Opteron 6282 SE is a processor for legacy server environments where fully parallel workloads dominate. The data shows strong multi-thread scaling (7.1x from single to multi-core in Cinebench), so anyone running 16-thread render farms, batch video encoding, or scientific computing that can saturate all cores will find it competitive with the aggregate scores of its rivals. For example, its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 5427 is respectable for a 16-thread part, and it ties or slightly beats the listed rivals in average benchmark score. This makes it a candidate for repurposed server builds where power consumption (140W TDP) is not a primary concern and where the G34 platform is already available.

However, it is a poor choice for gaming or office productivity. The single-core scores (766 in R23, 321 in R20, 77 in R15) are far too low for modern game engines or responsive desktop use. The lack of an unlocked multiplier means no overclocking headroom, and the Bulldozer architecture’s per-core efficiency is outdated. The data indicates that a modern dual-core i3-1115G4E matches its aggregate score, so for any mixed workload, the Opteron will disappoint. It should only be considered by users who have a defined, fully parallel workload and access to cheap G34 motherboards and DDR3 memory, as the 16 cores can still deliver throughput that matches the 40th percentile of all CPUs. For everyone else, the rival chips listed here offer the same aggregate performance with far better single-thread behavior and lower power draw.