AMD FX-9830P vs AMD Opteron 4226 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is remarkably one-sided in this comparison. The AMD Opteron 4226 wins every single recorded head-to-head benchmark, taking all five tests in the database. The FX-9830P records zero wins across the entire comparison set. That is a clean sweep, but the margins are small enough that the practical difference between these two chips in everyday workloads is modest.

The Opteron 4226 dominates in multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 291 against the FX-9830P's 282, a 3.1% lead. That advantage persists in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Opteron posts 1213 versus 1178, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 2890 against 2806, both at a 2.9% margin. The Opteron's six physical cores and eight megabytes of shared L3 cache help it sustain this edge across all three generations of the Cinebench suite.

Single-threaded performance also goes to the Opteron, though by equally narrow margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 171 against 166, and in Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 408 versus 396, both again at a 2.9% delta. This is notable because the FX-9830P has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and a higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to the Opteron's 2.70 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. Despite the clock disadvantage, the Opteron's older Bulldozer architecture still manages to edge out the Excavator-based FX part in single-threaded tests.

The FX-9830P does hold advantages that do not show up in the head-to-head benchmark table. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, a Radeon R7 8CU iGPU, so systems built around it do not require a discrete graphics card. It also draws far less power, with a 35 W TDP against the Opteron's 95 W, and it supports DDR4 memory at 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, nearly double the Opteron's DDR3 bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. For a mobile or compact desktop platform, the FX-9830P is the more practical choice despite losing every compute benchmark.

The Opteron's wins are consistent but small. A 2.9% to 3.1% margin is within run-to-run noise for many workloads, and neither chip is going to set any records. The database places both at the 27th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores sit at 1006 for the FX-9830P and 995 for the Opteron. The Opteron's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-2635QM with a matching 995 average score, while the FX-9830P sits level with the Intel Core i7-880 and Core i5-10210Y at 1006.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the database?

A: The AMD Opteron 4226 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks. It takes Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The FX-9830P records zero wins.

Q: How large is the Opteron 4226's performance lead?

A: The lead is consistently small. The Opteron is 3.1% ahead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 2.9% ahead in the other four tests, including both single-core and multi-core runs in R20 and R23.

Q: Does the FX-9830P have any advantages over the Opteron 4226?

A: Yes. The FX-9830P has integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics, a 35 W TDP versus 95 W, DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and a smaller 28 nm process node. It also has higher base and boost clocks at 3.00 GHz and 3.70 GHz.

Q: Why does the Opteron win single-threaded tests despite lower clocks?

A: The recorded data does not explain the architectural reasons, but the results are clear. The Opteron scores 171 versus 166 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 408 versus 396 in Cinebench R23 single-core, even though its base and boost clocks are lower than the FX-9830P's.

Q: How do these chips compare to other CPUs in the database?

A: Both sit at the 27th percentile among all CPUs. The FX-9830P has an average benchmark score of 1006, matching the Intel Core i7-880 and Core i5-10210Y. The Opteron averages 995, matching the Intel Core i7-2635QM and Core i7-2920XM.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The FX-9830P uses DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The Opteron 4226 uses DDR3 in a dual-channel configuration with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test opens the comparison with the closest margin of the entire set. The Opteron 4226 scores 291, while the FX-9830P scores 282, a 3.1% gap. This is the largest delta recorded between the two chips in any test, and it establishes the pattern that carries through the rest of the benchmark suite.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the Opteron ahead again, 1213 to 1178, a 2.9% margin. The FX-9830P's four cores and 1 MB per-module L2 cache cannot overcome the Opteron's six cores and 6 MB L2 cache in this heavily threaded workload. The Opteron also has an 8 MB shared L3 cache, while the FX-9830P has no L3 cache at all, a structural difference that shows up in sustained multi-threaded rendering.

The single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 171 against 166, a 2.9% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 408 versus 396, again 2.9% ahead. These are the narrowest wins in absolute point terms, but they are consistent across both generations of the test. The FX-9830P's higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz does not translate into a single-core victory at any point.

Cinebench R23 multi-core closes the set with the Opteron at 2890 and the FX-9830P at 2806, a 2.9% gap. The Opteron's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 995, which is actually 11 points lower than the FX-9830P's 1006 average, a quirk driven by the fact that the FX part has Geekbench results in the database (1606 multi-core, 605 single-core) while the Opteron does not. Within the shared Cinebench suite, however, the Opteron wins every run.

The deltas are remarkably stable. Four of the five tests show exactly a 2.9% difference, and the fifth shows 3.1%. That consistency suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent. The Opteron's Bulldozer design, despite being older, delivers a small but repeatable edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench performance.

Specification Differences

The FX-9830P is a 4-core, 4-thread mobile processor with a 3.00 GHz base clock and 3.70 GHz boost clock. The Opteron 4226 is a 6-core, 6-thread server processor with a 2.70 GHz base clock and 3.10 GHz boost clock. The Opteron has two additional physical cores, but both chips run one thread per core with no simultaneous multithreading.

Power draw differs dramatically. The FX-9830P carries a 35 W TDP, while the Opteron 4226 is rated at 95 W. That is a 60 W difference, which makes the FX part far better suited to thermally constrained systems. The Opteron requires a more substantial cooling solution and power delivery setup.

Memory support is another major split. The FX-9830P uses DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Opteron 4226 uses DDR3 in a dual-channel configuration with 25.6 GB/s. The FX part also lacks ECC support, while the Opteron includes ECC memory support, an expected feature for a server-oriented chip.

The integrated graphics situation is binary. The FX-9830P includes a Radeon R7 8CU iGPU, while the Opteron 4226 has no integrated graphics at all. Systems built around the Opteron require a discrete GPU for any display output.

PCIe support also differs. The FX-9830P provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Opteron 4226 provides PCIe Gen 2 with no lane count specified in the data. The FX part's newer PCIe generation offers higher bandwidth per lane.

Sockets are incompatible. The FX-9830P uses AMD Socket FP4, while the Opteron 4226 uses AMD Socket C32. The market segments reflect this: the FX part is labeled Mobile, and the Opteron is labeled Server/Workstation. Both are end-of-life products, with the FX-9830P released on May 30, 2016, and the Opteron 4226 released on November 13, 2011. The Opteron has a recorded launch MSRP of $125; the FX-9830P has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD architecture families. The FX-9830P uses the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Opteron 4226 uses the Bulldozer architecture under the Valencia codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die.

The die size difference is notable. The FX-9830P packs more than twice as many transistors into a smaller area, 3,100 million on 250 mm² versus 1,200 million on 315 mm². The 28 nm node gives the FX part a density advantage, but the Opteron's larger physical die still delivers more cores and a shared L3 cache.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The FX-9830P has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache. The Opteron 4226 has 288 KB of L1 cache, 6 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron's L3 cache is a major architectural advantage in workloads that benefit from shared data access across cores, and it helps explain the consistent Cinebench wins despite lower clocks.

The FX-9830P's L2 cache is organized per module, a holdover from AMD's module-based design philosophy. The Opteron's L2 is reported as a single 6 MB figure, with the 8 MB L3 shared across all six cores. Neither processor offers 3D V-Cache.

The generation labels reflect the different product lines. The FX-9830P is listed as generation "FX (Bristol Ridge)", while the Opteron 4226 is listed as "Opteron (Valencia)". The Opteron belongs to the Opteron 4000 series, a server-focused lineup, while the FX-9830P is a mobile part with integrated graphics.

The transistor count difference is stark: 3,100 million for the FX-9830P versus 1,200 million for the Opteron 4226. The FX part's Excavator architecture uses its transistor budget for the integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics and the newer DDR4 memory controller, along with the higher clock speeds. The Opteron's Bulldozer design spends its smaller transistor budget on six integer cores and the shared L3 cache, with no iGPU and an older DDR3 memory controller.

These architectural choices explain the benchmark results. The Opteron's six cores and 8 MB L3 cache give it a small but consistent edge in Cinebench, while the FX-9830P's architectural advantages, integrated graphics, lower power draw, and faster memory bandwidth, do not appear in the CPU-only benchmark suite. The recorded data shows the Opteron winning every compute test, but the FX-9830P remains the more versatile platform for systems that need graphics and efficiency in a single package.