Xeon E3-1280 vs Opteron 6376
Aggregated performance score
Xeon E3-1280 outperforms Opteron 6376 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
Comparing Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1403 | 1399 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.33 | 2.81 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Architecture codename | Abu Dhabi (2012) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 5 November 2012 (11 years old) | 3 April 2011 (13 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $750 | $450 |
| Current price | $915 (1.2x MSRP) | $111 (0.2x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E3-1280 has 752% better value for money than Opteron 6376.
Technical specs
Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280 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 | 2.3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (per die) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 216 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,400 million | 1,160 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280 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 | LGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| FDI | no data | - |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
Xeon E3-1280 outperforms Opteron 6376 by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon E3-1280 outperforms Opteron 6376 by 1% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon E3-1280 outperforms Opteron 6376 by 85% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Opteron 6376 outperforms Xeon E3-1280 by 40% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.60 | 3.63 |
| Recency | 5 November 2012 | 3 April 2011 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Cost | $750 | $450 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 95 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 6376 and Xeon E3-1280, 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.
