CPU Comparison

The AMD Opteron 3280 and AMD PRO A12-9800 are two desktop processors from different eras, built on different architectures, yet they land in nearly the same performance tier. The Opteron 3280, an 8-core K10 part from the Opteron 3000 series, and the PRO A12-9800, a 4-core Excavator part from the Bristol Ridge generation, end up as direct rivals in the benchmark database, separated by fractions of a percent in average score. The data shows a remarkably tight contest, where architectural age and core count differences cancel out in synthetic workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results tell a story of near-perfect parity, with the Opteron 3280 taking a narrow victory in every single test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 324 against 323 for the PRO A12-9800, a delta of just 0.3%. That margin is essentially noise, but it is a win nonetheless. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Opteron again edges ahead, posting 1350 versus 1347, a 0.2% advantage. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Opteron scores 3215 and the PRO A12-9800 scores 3208, another 0.2% delta.

Single-core results are even closer. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both processors score an identical 190, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, both score an identical 453. The data records the Opteron 3280 as the winner in these tests despite the tie, but the practical implication is clear: single-threaded performance is indistinguishable between these two chips. Across all five head-to-head benchmarks, the Opteron 3280 claims 5 wins and the PRO A12-9800 claims 0, yet the largest margin anywhere is 0.3%. This is not a case of one processor dominating another; it is a case of two very different designs converging on the same performance envelope.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The Opteron 3280 carries an average benchmark score of 1106, while the PRO A12-9800 sits at 1104. In the nearest rivals list, the Opteron is shown as 0.2% ahead of the PRO A12-9800, while the PRO A12-9800 is shown as 0.2% behind the Opteron. Both processors sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same position in the overall performance distribution. For a buyer or a system integrator, the benchmark data says these two CPUs are interchangeable in raw compute performance, despite their internal differences.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial, yet it produces almost no measurable performance difference. The Opteron 3280 is built on the K10 architecture with the Zurich codename, manufactured on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 8 cores and 8 threads, running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The die contains 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. Cache is generous: 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. It uses DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus, delivering 29.9 GB/s of bandwidth. It does not support ECC memory, despite being an Opteron part. The socket is AMD Socket AM3+, and it uses PCIe Gen 2. It launched in March 2012 with a launch MSRP of $229 and is now end-of-life.

The PRO A12-9800, by contrast, is a 4-core, 4-thread part built on the Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename. It uses a 28 nm process, also from GlobalFoundries, but packs 3,100 million transistors on a smaller 250 mm² die. Base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, significantly higher than the Opteron. Cache is much smaller: 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. It supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, boosting bandwidth to 38.4 GB/s. It uses PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU only. The socket is AMD Socket AM4. It includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, a feature the Opteron lacks entirely, the Opteron only has graphics "on certain motherboards" as a chipset feature. The PRO A12-9800 launched in October 2016 and remains active in production.

The core count difference is stark: 8 cores versus 4 cores. The clock speed difference is equally stark in the opposite direction: 3.80 GHz base versus 2.50 GHz base. The PRO A12-9800 compensates for having half the cores by running much faster, and the Opteron compensates for its lower clocks with double the cores and a large L3 cache. The result is a dead heat in Cinebench workloads. Notably, the PRO A12-9800 has no L3 cache, yet its higher clocks and newer architecture keep it competitive. Memory bandwidth favors the PRO A12-9800 at 38.4 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s, but that advantage does not translate into a benchmark win in any of the recorded tests.

Where Each One Wins

Given the near-identical benchmark scores, the decision between these two processors comes down to specific use-case advantages. The Opteron 3280 wins in multi-core Cinebench tests, though only by 0.2% to 0.3%. In R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core, the Opteron is ahead. That suggests a slight edge in heavily threaded workloads, likely attributable to its 8 cores and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. For workloads that scale across cores, rendering, compilation, or scientific computing, the Opteron is the nominal winner, even if the margin is negligible.

The PRO A12-9800 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data, but it brings other advantages. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics are a major differentiator. A system built around the PRO A12-9800 does not require a discrete GPU for basic display output or light graphics work. The Opteron 3280 has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate graphics card. The PRO A12-9800 also uses DDR4 memory, which offers higher bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s, and it supports PCIe Gen 3, doubling the per-lane bandwidth of the Opteron’s PCIe Gen 2. For systems using modern SSDs or GPUs, the newer I/O standards of the PRO A12-9800 are a practical advantage.

The PRO A12-9800 also has a production status of active, meaning it is still available, while the Opteron 3280 is end-of-life. For new system builds, the PRO A12-9800 is the more viable option from a supply chain perspective. The Opteron 3280’s higher core count may appeal to users who value raw multi-threaded throughput, but the data shows that advantage is almost entirely theoretical. In real Cinebench scores, the difference is less than a third of a percent. The PRO A12-9800’s higher clocks, at 4.20 GHz boost, make it a better fit for lightly threaded tasks, even though the single-core benchmark scores come out as a tie.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: these two processors are performance equals, with the Opteron 3280 holding a razor-thin edge in every recorded test. The Opteron’s 5-0 win count in the head-to-head benchmarks is technically accurate, but the largest margin is 0.3%. Any user choosing between them based on Cinebench scores alone would be choosing between identical performance. The Opteron 3280 is the pick for someone who wants 8 cores and an L3 cache, and who is building on the AM3+ platform with DDR3 memory. Its launch MSRP was $229, and it offers the multi-threading headroom of an 8-core design.

The PRO A12-9800 is the pick for someone building a new system on the AM4 platform. It offers integrated Radeon R7 graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic builds. It supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, making it the more modern platform choice. Its production status is active, so it is available for new deployments. The fact that it matches the Opteron’s multi-core scores with only 4 cores and no L3 cache is a testament to its higher clock speeds and newer Excavator architecture. For a system that needs graphics output, modern memory, and current socket compatibility, the PRO A12-9800 is the rational choice. For a pure compute node on an older platform, the Opteron 3280 is marginally ahead. Neither processor is a clear winner; the data says they are the same chip in different clothing.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 3280 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Neither the AMD Opteron 3280 nor the AMD PRO A12-9800 supports ECC memory, according to the data.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, both processors score 190. In Cinebench R23 single-core, both score 453. The data records the Opteron 3280 as the winner with a 0% delta, meaning performance is identical.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The AMD Opteron 3280 does not have integrated graphics, relying on a chipset feature on certain motherboards.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The AMD Opteron 3280 supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD PRO A12-9800 supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800 has an active production status. The AMD Opteron 3280 is end-of-life.