AMD Athlon PRO 300U vs AMD Opteron 3365 Comparison

The AMD Opteron 3365 and the AMD Athlon PRO 300U occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, yet their benchmark averages are nearly indistinguishable. The Opteron 3365, an eight-core K10 server part from the Opteron 3000 series, posts an average benchmark score of 1194, placing it in the 34th percentile of all CPUs. The Athlon PRO 300U, a dual-core Zen mobile chip, scores 1193 on average, sitting in the 33rd percentile. Across five Cinebench head-to-head tests, the Opteron wins every single one, but by margins of only 0.0% to 0.1%. The data tells a story of architectural contrast producing statistical parity.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that these two processors are effectively tied in raw compute performance, despite their wildly different designs. The Opteron 3365 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the largest margin is a mere 0.1% in both Cinebench R20 multi-core and R23 multi-core. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 single-core, the scores are identical at 349, 205, and 489, respectively. The nearest rival data confirms this: the Opteron 3365 is listed as being 0.1% ahead of the Athlon PRO 300U in average score (1194 vs 1193), and from the Athlon’s perspective, the Opteron is -0.1% behind in its own rival list.

Who should pick which depends entirely on workload context, not raw speed. The Opteron 3365 is a server/workstation part with 8 cores and 8 threads, a 65 TDP, and support for DDR3 memory on the AMD Socket AM3+ platform. The Athlon PRO 300U is a mobile part with 2 cores and 4 threads, a 15 TDP, and DDR4 support on the AMD Socket FP5 platform. The data shows the Opteron is end-of-life, while the Athlon is still active in production. For a server chassis with legacy DDR3 infrastructure and multi-threaded workloads that can use 8 physical cores, the Opteron 3365 is the logical choice. For a low-power mobile system needing integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics and a modern DDR4 memory bus, the Athlon PRO 300U is the only sensible option. The benchmarks suggest no performance penalty for choosing either, so platform constraints and power budgets should drive the decision.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two AMD parts is generational. The Opteron 3365 uses the K10 architecture on a 32 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, with the codename "Delhi" and a die size of 315 mm² containing 1,200 million transistors. The Athlon PRO 300U uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process node, also from GlobalFoundries, with the codename "Raven Ridge 2". The process shrink from 32 nm to 14 nm is substantial, yet the die size and transistor count for the Athlon are not listed in the data.

Core and thread counts differ dramatically. The Opteron has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading, while the Athlon has 2 cores and 4 threads, indicating SMT support. Cache hierarchies reflect these different design philosophies. The Opteron’s L1 cache is 384 KB total, its L2 is 4 MB, and it has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Athlon’s L1 is listed as 128 KB per core, L2 as 512 KB per core, and a shared L3 of 4 MB. With two cores, the Athlon’s effective L1 and L2 totals are 256 KB and 1 MB, respectively, far smaller than the Opteron’s aggregate caches.

Memory support further separates them. The Opteron uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and a listed memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Athlon uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, but its memory bandwidth is not listed. Neither part supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Opteron’s PCIe interface is Gen 2, while the Athlon’s PCIe information is absent. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Opteron relies on "on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)", whereas the Athlon includes Radeon Vega 3 graphics directly on the chip. Clock speeds are close, with the Opteron at 2.30 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, versus the Athlon at 2.40 GHz base and the same 3.30 GHz boost. The Opteron’s TDP of 65 is more than four times the Athlon’s 15.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a pattern of microscopic wins for the Opteron 3365. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both chips score exactly 349, with the Opteron listed as the winner due to a 0% delta. This is a tie in every measurable sense, yet the database awards the win to the Opteron based on the nominal score.

Cinebench R20 multi-core is the largest divergence. The Opteron scores 1457 against the Athlon’s 1456, a 0.1% delta. This single-point difference is within any reasonable margin of error, but it does demonstrate that the eight-core K10 part can edge out the dual-core Zen part when all cores are loaded. The Opteron’s 8 physical cores appear to compensate for the Athlon’s architectural efficiency and SMT, resulting in a near-tie.

Single-core tests are absolute ties. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both score 205. In Cinebench R23 single-core, both score 489. These identical numbers suggest that the Zen core in the Athlon PRO 300U and the K10 core in the Opteron 3365 deliver essentially identical single-threaded throughput in Cinebench, despite the 14 nm vs 32 nm process gap and the different microarchitectures. The base clock difference of 0.10 GHz (2.40 vs 2.30) and identical boost clocks of 3.30 GHz likely play a role in this parity.

Cinebench R23 multi-core mirrors the R20 result. The Opteron scores 3470, the Athlon scores 3468, a 0.1% delta. Across all five tests, the Opteron wins five and the Athlon wins zero, but the cumulative margin is negligible. The average benchmark scores of 1194 and 1193 reflect this near-equality, with the Opteron’s rival list showing a +0.1% delta over the Athlon, and the Athlon’s list showing a -0.1% delta against the Opteron.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Opteron 3365 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The AMD Athlon PRO 300U has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Are the benchmark scores meaningfully different between the two?

A: No. The Opteron 3365 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the largest delta is 0.1% in multi-core tests. Single-core scores are identical at 205 in Cinebench R20 and 489 in Cinebench R23. The average benchmark scores are 1194 for the Opteron and 1193 for the Athlon.

Q: What are the process nodes and architectures?

A: The Opteron 3365 uses the K10 architecture on a 32 nm process node with the codename "Delhi". The Athlon PRO 300U uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process node with the codename "Raven Ridge 2".

Q: Which CPU supports DDR4 memory?

A: The AMD Athlon PRO 300U supports DDR4 memory. The AMD Opteron 3365 supports DDR3 memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Does either CPU have integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Athlon PRO 300U has integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics. The AMD Opteron 3365 has integrated graphics only as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, not directly on the CPU.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Opteron 3365 has a TDP of 65, while the Athlon PRO 300U has a TDP of 15. The Athlon consumes significantly less power.

Where Each One Wins

The Opteron 3365 wins in raw core count and aggregate cache capacity. Its 8 cores and 8 threads provide physical parallelism that the 2-core, 4-thread Athlon cannot match in workloads that scale linearly. The Opteron also has a larger L3 cache at 8 MB shared versus the Athlon’s 4 MB shared, and a larger L2 cache at 4 MB versus the Athlon’s 512 KB per core (1 MB total). The Opteron’s 384 KB L1 cache is also larger than the Athlon’s 128 KB per core (256 KB total). In multi-threaded server workloads that can use all 8 cores, the Opteron’s benchmark wins, however marginal, align with its core advantage.

The Athlon PRO 300U wins in efficiency and platform modernity. Its 15 TDP is a fraction of the Opteron’s 65, making it suitable for mobile and low-power systems. The 14 nm Zen architecture is a generation ahead of the 32 nm K10, and the Athlon supports DDR4 memory, which is a newer standard than the Opteron’s DDR3. The integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics provide a display output capability that the Opteron lacks without a chipset-based solution. The Athlon is also an active production part, while the Opteron is end-of-life.

In single-threaded performance, neither wins. The data shows identical scores of 205 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 489 in Cinebench R23 single-core. The identical boost clocks of 3.30 GHz likely contribute to this tie. In multi-threaded performance, the Opteron wins nominally, with a 0.1% lead in both R20 and R23 multi-core tests. The Athlon’s SMT (4 threads on 2 cores) helps it keep pace with the Opteron’s 8 physical cores, but it cannot overcome the core-count deficit.

For a workload dominated by parallel integer tasks on a server motherboard with DDR3, the Opteron 3365 is the data-backed choice. For a mobile or embedded system needing low power, DDR4, and on-chip graphics, the Athlon PRO 300U is the only viable option. The benchmark data suggests that in pure compute terms, the choice between them is a coin flip, with the Opteron holding a 0.1% edge in average score and the Athlon offering a 50-point lower TDP advantage. The production status difference is decisive for new designs: the Athlon is active, the Opteron is end-of-life.