Xeon E3-1265L v3 vs Opteron 6282 SE
Aggregate performance score
Opteron 6282 SE outperforms Xeon E3-1265L v3 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1411 | 1437 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.56 | 0.81 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 2.72 | 8.22 |
| Architecture codename | Interlagos (2011−2012) | Haswell-WS (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 14 November 2011 (13 years ago) | 2 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,090 | $710 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E3-1265L v3 has 45% better value for money than Opteron 6282 SE.
Detailed specifications
Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (per die) | 8192 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 316 mm2 | 160 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 2,400 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 4 | 1 |
| Socket | G34 | FCLGA1150 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.2 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.02 | 3.91 |
| Recency | 14 November 2011 | 2 June 2013 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 45 Watt |
Opteron 6282 SE has a 2.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Xeon E3-1265L v3, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 211.1% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon E3-1265L v3, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
