AMD Opteron 3280 vs Intel Core i3-7300 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the Intel Core i3-7300 wins every recorded head-to-head comparison against the AMD Opteron 3280. Out of five Cinebench tests, the Intel part takes all five, with the AMD Opteron 3280 recording zero wins. This is not a case of one chip dominating in some workloads while the other counterattacks elsewhere; the Intel advantage is uniform across both single-core and multi-core tests.

The Intel Core i3-7300's strengths lie in its raw per-thread performance. In single-core tests, it leads by roughly 20% across every generation of Cinebench. The Opteron 3280, despite having four times the physical cores, cannot overcome this per-core deficit. The multi-core results are equally decisive, with the Intel chip maintaining a similar 19.8% to 19.9% lead. This suggests the Opteron's eight cores do not scale efficiently enough to offset the Intel processor's superior architecture and clock speed.

The AMD Opteron 3280, by contrast, finds its niche in scenarios where core count matters more than per-core speed. Its eight cores and eight threads provide a wide execution width, but the recorded benchmarks show this width does not translate into wins. The data indicates the Opteron 3280 is closer to the Intel chip in multi-core workloads than in single-core ones, but the gap remains substantial. For workloads that are heavily threaded and optimized for many cores, the Opteron's deficit narrows but never disappears.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-7300 uses the Kaby Lake architecture on a 14 nm process, manufactured by Intel. It is a dual-core part with four threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to double its logical core count. The AMD Opteron 3280 uses the K10 architecture, codenamed Zurich, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is a true eight-core, eight-thread design without any simultaneous multithreading.

The process node gap is significant: 14 nm versus 32 nm. This explains much of the efficiency and performance difference. The Intel chip integrates 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Opteron 3280 features 8 MB of shared L3 cache plus 8 MB of L2 cache. The Opteron also has a larger L1 cache at 384 KB total, compared to the Intel's 64 KB per core. The AMD part's transistor count is listed at 1,200 million on a 315 mm² die, whereas the Intel chip's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Memory support also diverges sharply. The Intel Core i3-7300 supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Opteron 3280 uses DDR3, also dual-channel, with a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. Neither chip supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Intel part offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Opteron 3280 is limited to Gen 2. The Intel chip includes integrated Intel HD 630 graphics, whereas the Opteron's graphics capability is described as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, not a true integrated GPU.

The Opteron 3280 also has a boost clock of 3.50 GHz against a base of 2.50 GHz, while the Intel chip runs at a fixed 4.00 GHz with no boost mechanism. The Intel part is unlocked, meaning its multiplier cannot be adjusted for overclocking. The Opteron is likewise locked. Production statuses differ: the Intel Core i3-7300 is active, while the Opteron 3280 is end-of-life. The release dates show the Opteron arrived in March 2012, while the Intel chip launched in January 2017, a five-year gap that explains the architectural gulf.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five direct comparisons between these two CPUs. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Core i3-7300 scores 388 against the Opteron's 324, a 19.8% lead. This is notable because the Opteron has four times the physical cores. The Intel chip's dual-core design with Hyper-Threading manages to outperform an eight-core processor by nearly a fifth in a heavily threaded workload.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 1619 for the Intel chip versus 1350 for the Opteron, a 19.9% difference. The single-core R20 test gives the Intel part 228 versus 190, a 20% advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 3856 against 3215, again a 19.9% gap. Finally, R23 single-core shows 544 versus 453, a 20.1% lead.

The consistency of these deltas is striking. Across five tests spanning three Cinebench versions, the Intel advantage hovers between 19.8% and 20.1%. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural, rooted in per-clock efficiency and memory bandwidth, rather than workload-specific quirks. The Opteron 3280's eight cores simply cannot compensate for the Intel chip's superior single-thread throughput and higher memory bandwidth.

One interesting observation: the Opteron's multi-core scores are closer to the Intel chip in absolute terms (for example, 3215 versus 3856 in R23) than its single-core scores are (453 versus 544). But the percentage gap remains roughly equal. This implies that adding more cores to the Opteron does help it close the raw score gap, but the per-core deficit is so large that even a 4x core advantage is insufficient.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal several key differences beyond the obvious core count disparity.

Cores and Threads: Intel Core i3-7300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. AMD Opteron 3280 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Clock Speeds: Intel runs at a fixed 4.00 GHz with no boost. AMD runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost.

Process Node: Intel uses 14 nm. AMD uses 32 nm.

Cache Layout: Intel has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. AMD has 384 KB total L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3.

Memory: Intel supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. AMD supports DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth.

PCIe: Intel offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. AMD offers Gen 2.

Integrated Graphics: Intel includes HD 630. AMD relies on chipset-based graphics on certain motherboards.

Socket: Intel uses Socket 1151. AMD uses AM3+.

Production Status: Intel is active. AMD is end-of-life.

Release Date: Intel launched in January 2017. AMD launched in March 2012.

Transistors and Die Size: AMD lists 1,200 million transistors and a 315 mm² die. Intel does not record these values in the database.

Part Numbers and Series: Intel's part number is SR359. AMD's is OS3280OLW8KGU, part of the Opteron 3000 series.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 3280 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-7300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the Opteron 3280 ever win any benchmark?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Opteron 3280 across five head-to-head Cinebench tests.

Q: How large is the Intel chip's single-core advantage?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 leads by 20% in Cinebench R20 single-core and 20.1% in R23 single-core.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel chip supports 38.4 GB/s over DDR4, while the Opteron 3280 supports 29.9 GB/s over DDR3.

Q: Which chip is older?

A: The AMD Opteron 3280 was released in March 2012 and is now end-of-life. The Intel Core i3-7300 was released in January 2017 and remains active.

Q: Does either chip support ECC memory?

A: No, both the Intel Core i3-7300 and the AMD Opteron 3280 have ECC memory support marked as false.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core i3-7300 outperforms the AMD Opteron 3280 in every recorded benchmark, with a consistent 20% margin across single-core and multi-core workloads. The Opteron's eight cores are a numerical advantage that never materializes into a performance win. The Intel chip's 14 nm process, 4.00 GHz fixed clock, and DDR4 memory bandwidth combine to deliver superior results despite having only two physical cores.

For users prioritizing single-threaded responsiveness, everyday applications, or workloads that benefit from high frequency, the Intel Core i3-7300 is the clear choice. Its 20% single-core lead means snappier performance in most software, and its multi-core results show it can even hold its own against an eight-core rival.

The AMD Opteron 3280, while end-of-life, still offers eight physical cores for workloads that scale perfectly across threads. Its 8 MB of L2 and 8 MB of L3 cache provide ample on-die storage, and its 65 W TDP is reasonable. However, the benchmark data shows that even in multi-core tests, the Intel chip wins by nearly 20%. The Opteron 3280 cannot be recommended based on performance metrics alone. Its only potential appeal lies in raw core count, which the recorded results show does not translate into a competitive advantage. The Intel Core i3-7300 wins this comparison decisively.