Opteron 6380 vs Xeon E5-2680 v4
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Opteron 6380 by a whopping 166% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 636 | 1297 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.73 | 1.53 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell-EP (2016) | Abu Dhabi (2012) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 5 November 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,745 | $1,150 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E5-2680 v4 has 1124% better value for money than Opteron 6380.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 28 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Bus support | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 448 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 cache | 3.5 MB | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 35 MB | 8 MB (per die) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 306.18 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 86 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4700 Million | 2,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 4 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011-3 | G34 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 115 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 1,536 GB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
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 E5-2680 v4 outperforms Opteron 6380 by 166% based on our aggregate 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 E5-2680 v4 outperforms Opteron 6380 by 166% 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 E5-2680 v4 outperforms Opteron 6380 by 144% 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%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Opteron 6380 by 118% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.51 | 4.32 |
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 5 November 2012 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 16 |
| Threads | 28 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 115 Watt |
Xeon E5-2680 v4 has a 166.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 75% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
Opteron 6380, on the other hand, has 14.3% more physical cores, and 4.3% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-2680 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Opteron 6380 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Opteron 6380, 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.
