CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6380 vs 6212 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

4.6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD Opteron 6380 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Opteron 6380  based on its performance and single-core performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

AMD Opteron 6380

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD Opteron 6380

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Opteron 6380

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 6380

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 16 MB vs 8 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better PassMark score 10,082 vs 5,776 Around 75% better PassMark score
More threads 16 vs 8 Twice as many threads
Higher turbo clock speed 3.4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
Newer Nov, 2012 vs Nov, 2011 Release date 11 months later
Front view of AMD Opteron 6212

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 6212

Report a correction
Much better performance per watt 5.87 pt/W vs 1.46 pt/W More than 4x better performance per watt
Higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 2.5 GHz Around 5% higher clock speed
Much more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.6 GHz vs 2.5 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Opteron 6380 vs 6212

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 6380
6,248
Opteron 6212
10,686

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 6380
1,570 MB/s
Opteron 6212
1,555,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Opteron 6380
10,082
Opteron 6212
5,776

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Opteron 6380  vs
6212 
Clock speed 2.5 GHz 2.6 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.4 GHz 3.2 GHz
Cores 16 core Octa core
Socket type
G34
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM

power consumption

TDP 115W 115W
Annual home energy cost 27.7 $/year 27.7 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 100.74 $/year 100.74 $/year
Performance per watt 1.46 pt/W 5.87 pt/W
Typical power consumption 93.44W 93.44W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3

details

Opteron 6380  vs
6212 
Threads 16 8
L2 cache 16 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 16 MB 16 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 4 4
Clock multiplier 17 16
Operating temperature Unknown - 69°C Unknown - 71.7°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 0 0
Overclocked clock speed 2.93 GHz 2.9 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.5 GHz 2.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.93 GHz 2.9 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

bus

Architecture HyperTransport 3.0 HyperTransport 3.0
Transfer rate 6,400 MT/s 6,400 MT/s
Clock speed 3,200 MHz 3,200 MHz
AMD Opteron 6380
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 6212
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus