CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-2620 v3 vs 8384 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

5.6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD Opteron 8384 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Opteron 8384  based on its cost to run.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 15 MB vs 6 MB 2.5x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Much better performance per watt 12.6 pt/W vs 3.66 pt/W Around 3.5x better performance per watt
More threads 12 vs 4 Three times as many threads
Newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much more l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core vs 1.5 MB/core More than 65% more l3 cache per core
Newer Jul, 2014 vs Nov, 2008 Release date over 5 years later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.87 GHz vs 2.7 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD Opteron 8384

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 8384

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 2.7 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 8 vs 2 6 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration
Lower typical power consumption 60.94W vs 69.06W More than 10% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year vs 20.48 $/year More than 10% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year vs 74.46 $/year More than 10% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-2620 v3 vs Opteron 8384

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5-2620 v3
2,750,000 MB/s
Opteron 8384
161.4 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-2620 v3  vs
Opteron 8384 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 2.7 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Is unlocked Yes No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
AVX
SSE3
SSE
3DNow!
AES
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 85W 75W
Annual home energy cost 20.48 $/year 18.07 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 74.46 $/year 65.7 $/year
Performance per watt 12.6 pt/W 3.66 pt/W
Typical power consumption 69.06W 60.94W

details

Xeon E5-2620 v3  vs
Opteron 8384 
Threads 12 4
L3 cache 15 MB 6 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 2 8
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.6°C 0 - 55°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.66 GHz 2.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.87 GHz 2.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.66 GHz 2.7 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

Clock speed 4,000 MHz 2,200 MHz
Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 8384
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus