AMD A10-5800B vs AMD Opteron 3350 HE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually tight contest between these two AMD processors. The A10-5800B and the Opteron 3350 HE land at nearly identical aggregate scores, with the A10 averaging 794 and the Opteron averaging 789. That five-point gap is negligible in real-world terms, and both CPUs sit at the 21st percentile among all tested processors. The direct comparison shows no head-to-head benchmark victories for either chip, meaning the available data reflects two different benchmark suites rather than a single shared test set.

What the numbers do reveal is a split in workload character. The A10-5800B posts a Geekbench multicore score of 1128 and a single-core score of 459. These are the only benchmark results available for the Trinity-based desktop part. The Opteron 3350 HE, by contrast, was tested exclusively through Cinebench, scoring 231 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 963 in R20 multicore, 135 in R20 single-core, 2294 in R23 multicore, and 323 in R23 single-core. Because the two chips share no common benchmark, a direct apples-to-apples score comparison is impossible from this data. What the analyst can say is that both processors anchor the same performance tier—their nearest rivals cluster tightly around the 788-797 average score range.

The A10-5800B sits within 0.5 percent of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770, a 790-point performer, and within 0.3 percent of both the AMD A10-7850K and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G, each scoring 796-797. The Opteron 3350 HE, meanwhile, lands within 0.2 percent of the Intel Core i5-3610ME and within 0.1 percent of both the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and the Intel Core i5-4210U. This is a remarkable clustering—essentially every rival within a one-point spread. The data suggests neither chip holds a meaningful aggregate advantage over the other, nor over a broad swath of older and embedded processors.

Interpreting the Cinebench results for the Opteron shows a processor that scales predictably with thread count. The R23 multicore score of 2294 is roughly 7.1 times the single-core score of 323, which is consistent with a four-core, four-thread part with no simultaneous multithreading. The R20 results follow the same pattern: 963 multicore against 135 single-core, a ratio of about 7.1. The R15 multicore score of 231 is harder to contextualize without a matching single-core run, but the overall trajectory is consistent.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD A10-5800B averages 794 points, while the AMD Opteron 3350 HE averages 789 points. The difference is five points, or roughly 0.6 percent.

Q: Do the two processors share any common benchmark results?

A: No. The A10-5800B was tested with Geekbench multicore and single-core tests, while the Opteron 3350 HE was tested exclusively with Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 workloads. No head-to-head benchmark data exists in the fact pack.

Q: What is the Opteron 3350 HE's best Cinebench result?

A: Its highest score is 2294 in Cinebench R23 multicore, followed by 963 in R20 multicore and 231 in R15 multicore. Its single-core peak is 323 in R23.

Q: How does the A10-5800B compare to its nearest rival, the AMD A6-9400?

A: The A10-5800B averages 794, and the A6-9400 also averages 794. The delta is -0.1 percent, meaning the two are statistically identical.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The A10-5800B has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Opteron 3350 HE has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The A10 is faster in both metrics.

Q: What is the Opteron 3350 HE's launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP is $125.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages despite sharing the AMD name and a 32 nm manufacturing process from GlobalFoundries. The A10-5800B uses the Piledriver architecture on the Trinity codename, while the Opteron 3350 HE uses the older K10 architecture on the Delhi codename. This architectural divide explains most of their behavioral differences.

The A10-5800B packs 1,303 million transistors onto a 246 mm² die. The Opteron 3350 HE uses 1,200 million transistors on a substantially larger 315 mm² die. That larger die with fewer transistors suggests a less dense layout, consistent with the older K10 design. Both chips have four cores and four threads, so neither benefits from simultaneous multithreading.

Cache configurations differ meaningfully. The A10-5800B has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of shared L2 cache, but no L3 cache at all. The Opteron 3350 HE matches the 192 KB L1 and 4 MB L2, but adds an 8 MB shared L3 cache. For server workloads that repeatedly access a working set larger than 4 MB, the Opteron's L3 could provide a real advantage, though the benchmark data does not isolate this effect.

The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator. The A10-5800B includes a Radeon HD 7660D GPU on the die. The Opteron 3350 HE has no integrated graphics of its own, though the fact pack notes that graphics may be available "on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)." This makes the A10 a self-contained desktop solution, while the Opteron relies on external or chipset-provided display output.

Memory support is otherwise identical: both use DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 29.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. Both run on PCIe Gen 2. The sockets differ—the A10 uses AMD Socket FM2, while the Opteron uses AMD Socket AM3+—so they are not interchangeable in a motherboard.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: choose the A10-5800B for desktop computing with integrated graphics needs, and choose the Opteron 3350 HE for server or workstation deployments where the lower thermal envelope and L3 cache matter more than raw clock speed.

Benchmark results indicate the A10-5800B holds a slight aggregate edge at 794 versus 789, but that five-point gap is within the margin of error of the nearest-rival clustering. The A10's real advantages are its higher clocks—3.80 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost versus 2.80 GHz and 3.80 GHz—and its integrated Radeon HD 7660D. For a desktop user who needs graphics output without a discrete card, the A10 is the only sensible choice between these two.

The Opteron 3350 HE counters with a 45 W TDP against the A10's 100 W TDP. That is a massive power efficiency gap, more than halving the thermal requirement. For a server environment running 24/7, that difference compounds into significant operational savings. The Opteron also adds an 8 MB L3 cache, which the A10 lacks entirely. For workloads with high cache locality, the Opteron's architecture could outperform its clock-speed disadvantage.

Neither chip is a performance leader—both sit at the 21st percentile among all CPUs, and their nearest rivals include decade-old Intel Core 2 Extreme parts and low-power mobile chips. The production status for both is end-of-life, so these are legacy considerations, not current purchase recommendations. Still, for retrofits or replacement parts, the decision hinges on graphics needs versus power efficiency.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ:

| Field | AMD A10-5800B | AMD Opteron 3350 HE |

|-------|---------------|---------------------|

| Series | null | Opteron 3000 series |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 100 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FM2 | AMD Socket AM3+ |

| Architecture | Piledriver | K10 |

| Codename | Trinity | Delhi |

| Generation | A10 (Trinity) | Opteron (Delhi) |

| Transistors | 1,303 million | 1,200 million |

| Die Size | 246 mm² | 315 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 4 MB |

| L3 Cache | null | 8 MB (shared) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon HD 7660D | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2012-10-01 | 2012-12-03 |

| Launch MSRP | null | $125 |

| Part Number | AD580BWOA44HJ | OS3350HOW4KHK |

| Benchmarks | Geekbench only | Cinebench only |

Fields not listed—cores, threads, L1 cache, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe generation, production status, multiplier unlock, and process node—are identical between the two parts.

Where Each One Wins

The A10-5800B wins for desktop general use. Its integrated Radeon HD 7660D eliminates the need for a separate graphics card, which is a decisive advantage for office machines, media centers, or any build where discrete graphics are not required. The higher base and boost clocks—3.80 GHz and 4.20 GHz—also give it a clear edge in single-threaded responsiveness, which the Geekbench single-core score of 459 reflects. Its 100 W TDP is higher, but for a desktop that is not a limiting constraint.

The Opteron 3350 HE wins for power-sensitive server deployments. The 45 W TDP is the standout feature here, delivering more than 50 percent power reduction relative to the A10. In a server rack with dozens of sockets, that difference is enormous for cooling and electricity costs. The 8 MB L3 cache is another server-friendly feature, potentially accelerating repeated access patterns in database or virtualized workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 2294, while from a different benchmark suite, at least confirms the Opteron can handle multi-threaded compute tasks.

The Opteron 3350 HE also wins for cache-sensitive workloads. With 8 MB of L3 cache versus none on the A10, any application that fits its active dataset into that cache will see disproportionate benefits. The A10's lack of L3 is a structural limitation that no clock-speed advantage can fully overcome for such workloads.

The A10-5800B wins for upgrade compatibility in FM2 systems. Users with an existing FM2 motherboard can drop in this part without changing platforms. Similarly, the Opteron serves AM3+ systems. The two are not cross-compatible, so the existing platform dictates the practical choice.

Neither wins on raw performance. Both processors sit at the 21st percentile, and their nearest rivals are all within 0.5 percent of their average scores. This is a tie in compute capability, with the decision resting on power, graphics, and cache rather than benchmark supremacy.