AMD Athlon X4 840 vs AMD Opteron 4386 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record splits cleanly in favor of the AMD Athlon X4 840, which takes all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons. The margin is consistent but narrow: in multi-threaded workloads, the Athlon leads by 1.8% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, while single-threaded tests show a slightly wider gap of 2.4% in R20 single-core and 2.0% in R23 single-core. These are not transformative advantages, but they are uniform across every recorded test, meaning the Athlon X4 840 holds a small but repeatable edge in both lightly threaded and fully loaded scenarios.

The Opteron 4386, despite carrying twice the core count, does not translate that hardware into a win anywhere in the Cinebench suite. Its best showing is a 280 in Cinebench R15 multicore, just 5 points behind the Athlon's 285. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the gap stretches to 51 points, with the Athlon at 2833 versus the Opteron's 2782. The single-core results follow the same pattern: 400 versus 392 in R23 single-core, and 168 versus 164 in R20 single-core.

For users choosing between these two, the use case split is therefore not about one being clearly better for a specific task type. The data shows the Athlon X4 840 wins everywhere, but the margins are small enough that the Opteron 4386 remains competitive in absolute terms. The Opteron's advantage would have to come from platform-level features rather than raw Cinebench performance, since the benchmark results offer no scenario where it comes out ahead.

What is more telling is how each processor sits relative to its own peer group. The Athlon X4 840 posts an average benchmark score of 975, placing it level with the Intel Core i3-4130, the Intel Core i3-4150T, and the AMD A10-7870K, all of which share the exact same 975 average. The Opteron 4386 averages 957, which matches the Intel Core i7-950 and sits within 1 point of the AMD Athlon X4 870K and Intel Xeon W3550. Both chips occupy the 26th percentile of all CPUs in the database, so neither is a standout in the broader landscape, but the Athlon's slightly higher average score and its clean sweep of the head-to-head tests give it the edge in every measured category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD design generations and target different sockets. The Athlon X4 840 uses the Steamroller architecture on the Kaveri codename, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,411 million transistors into a 245 mm² die. The Opteron 4386 uses the older Piledriver architecture with the Seoul codename, fabricated on a 32 nm process, and it contains 1,200 million transistors on a larger 315 mm² die. That transistor count is roughly half the Athlon's, yet the Opteron's die is physically bigger, a direct consequence of the older process node.

Core and cache configurations diverge sharply. The Athlon X4 840 has 4 cores and 4 threads, with 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache. The Opteron 4386 doubles the core count to 8 cores and 8 threads, with 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and an additional 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Athlon has no L3 cache at all. This means the Opteron should theoretically have a significant throughput advantage in heavily parallel workloads, yet the benchmark results show it does not convert that extra hardware into superior Cinebench scores, likely due to the architectural efficiency gap between Piledriver and Steamroller.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR3, but the Athlon X4 840 runs a dual-channel memory bus with a rated bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Opteron 4386's memory bus width and bandwidth are not recorded in the database. Neither chip supports ECC memory. The Athlon also brings PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Opteron's PCIe configuration is unlisted.

The platform targets are distinct. The Athlon X4 840 is a desktop part on AMD Socket FM2+, with an unlocked multiplier and a 65 W TDP. The Opteron 4386 is a server or workstation part on AMD Socket C32, with a locked multiplier and a 95 W TDP. The release dates are also separated: the Opteron launched on December 3, 2012, while the Athlon arrived on August 11, 2014. The Athlon is marked as end-of-life, while the Opteron's production status is not recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 4386 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Athlon X4 840 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the Athlon X4 840 beat the Opteron 4386 in any benchmark?

A: Yes. The Athlon X4 840 wins all five recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests: R15 multicore (285 vs 280), R20 multicore (1189 vs 1168), R20 single-core (168 vs 164), R23 multicore (2833 vs 2782), and R23 single-core (400 vs 392).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Athlon X4 840 has a 65 W TDP, while the Opteron 4386 has a 95 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Neither the Athlon X4 840 nor the Opteron 4386 supports ECC memory.

Q: Which chip has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Athlon X4 840 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Opteron 4386 is locked.

Q: How does the Opteron 4386 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Opteron 4386 averages 957 points, matching the Intel Core i7-950 exactly, and coming within 1 point of the AMD Athlon X4 870K (956) and Intel Xeon W3550 (956). It also trails the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 by 1 point (958).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Athlon X4 840 | AMD Opteron 4386 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 95 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FM2+ | AMD Socket C32 |

| Architecture | Steamroller | Piledriver |

| Codename | Kaveri | Seoul |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | 2,411 million | 1,200 million |

| Die Size | 245 mm² | 315 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 384 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB per core, total 4 MB total | 8 MB total |

| L3 Cache | None | 8 MB shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | Not recorded |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | No | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 lanes, CPU only, manual | Not recorded |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2014-08-11 | 2012-12-03 |

| Part Number | AD840XYBI44JA | OS4386WLU8KHK |

Both chips share the same base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz, so frequency is not a differentiator. The Athlon X4 840's smaller 28 nm process and larger transistor count contrast with the Opteron's 32 nm process and smaller transistor count, yet the Opteron has the larger die. The Athlon also lists a dual-channel memory bus and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the Opteron's memory bus details are absent from the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The narrowest win for the Athlon X4 840 comes in Cinebench R15 multicore, where it scores 285 against the Opteron's 280, a 1.8% margin. That is a difference of just 5 points, well within run-to-run noise on many systems, but the pattern repeats across every other test. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Athlon scores 1189 versus 1168, again a 1.8% edge. The R23 multicore test shows the same relative gap: 2833 versus 2782, a 51-point difference that also works out to 1.8%.

Single-threaded performance is where the Athlon extends its lead slightly. Cinebench R20 single-core gives the Athlon 168 points against the Opteron's 164, a 2.4% advantage, the largest margin in the entire head-to-head set. Cinebench R23 single-core follows with 400 versus 392, a 2.0% gap. These results indicate that the Athlon's per-core efficiency, stemming from the newer Steamroller architecture, offsets the Opteron's extra cores in multi-threaded tests and pushes ahead more noticeably in single-threaded work.

The broader benchmark averages reinforce the head-to-head outcome. The Athlon X4 840 averages 975 points across all recorded benchmarks, while the Opteron 4386 averages 957, a difference of 18 points. That 1.9% average gap aligns closely with the per-test margins. Both CPUs rank at the 26th percentile of all processors in the database, meaning neither moves the needle in the wider market, but within this pairing the Athlon is consistently the faster part.

The Opteron's 8-core configuration and 8 MB of L3 cache would normally suggest a major multi-threaded advantage, yet the data shows it cannot overcome the Athlon's architectural improvements. In every Cinebench iteration, from the older R15 to the newer R23, the Athlon X4 840 holds a lead of roughly 2%, whether the workload is single-threaded or fully parallel. The Opteron 4386's best result is a tie in no test, and its closest finish is the 5-point deficit in R15 multicore. For anyone evaluating these two purely on benchmark performance, the Athlon X4 840 is the winner in every recorded scenario, and the Opteron's only remaining justification would be its server-oriented platform and socket rather than its compute results.