AMD Opteron 3280 vs Intel Core i5-3550S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in the direct comparison. The Intel Core i5-3550S wins all five head-to-head benchmark entries, with the AMD Opteron 3280 failing to take a single test. The margins are consistent and meaningful, clustering tightly between 18.2% and 18.5% across every workload.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel part scores 383 against the Opteron's 324, a delta of 18.2%. That gap expands slightly in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Intel chip reaches 1599 versus 1350, an 18.4% advantage. The same 18.4% delta appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, with scores of 225 and 190 respectively. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: multicore sees Intel at 3808 against AMD at 3215 (18.4% ahead), and single-core shows Intel at 537 versus 453, the largest relative gap in the set at 18.5%.

The consistency of these deltas is notable. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the relative performance gap remains nearly identical. This suggests the difference is not merely a matter of core count or clock speed but reflects a fundamental efficiency advantage that scales across both latency-sensitive and throughput-heavy tasks.

For context on the broader database, the Intel i5-3550S holds an average benchmark score of 1118, placing it at the 31st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-4150 at an average score of 1119 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i7-2860QM at 1120 (0.1% higher), and the AMD Athlon 240GE at 1121 (0.2% higher). The AMD Ryzen 3 1200 sits slightly below at 1116, a 0.2% deficit. The Opteron 3280 averages 1106, matching the AMD Athlon X4 845 exactly, with the AMD Opteron 4280 and AMD PRO A12-8870 each at 1107 (0.1% higher) and the AMD PRO A12-9800 at 1104 (0.2% lower).

The takeaway from the head-to-head data is straightforward: the Intel part is faster in every measured scenario, and the margin is substantial enough to be meaningful for real-world workloads. The Opteron's eight cores do not compensate for its architectural disadvantages in these tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-3550S is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, using a 22 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 160 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 3280 uses the K10 architecture, codenamed Zurich, on a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 1,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 315 mm² die.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Intel chip has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Opteron offers 8 cores and 8 threads. Despite having half the core count, the Intel part wins all multicore benchmarks. Its base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz both exceed the Opteron's 2.50 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The Intel processor also benefits from a more modern microarchitecture with superior per-clock instruction throughput.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. Intel allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 6 MB of shared L3. AMD's design uses a combined 384 KB L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The per-core cache allocation in the Intel design is more generous relative to its core count, which helps explain its single-core dominance.

Memory support is DDR3 for both, with dual-channel buses. The Opteron lists a memory bandwidth figure of 29.9 GB/s, while the Intel part does not have a recorded bandwidth value. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: the Intel chip uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, whereas the Opteron is limited to Gen 2.

Integrated graphics are present on the Intel side as Intel HD 2500. The Opteron has no native GPU, relying instead on a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The Intel part uses the Intel Socket 1155, while the Opteron uses AMD Socket AM3+. Both are locked multipliers, so neither offers overclocking via multiplier adjustment.

The production status also differs: the Opteron is marked end-of-life, while the Intel part has no such status recorded. Release dates are close, with the Opteron launching on 2012-03-19 and the Intel part on 2012-04-28. The Opteron carries a launch MSRP of $229, stated once here for reference.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3550S wins everywhere in this comparison. Every benchmark in the head-to-head table goes to Intel, and the margins are consistent across both single-core and multicore tests. The data does not show a single scenario where the Opteron takes the lead.

For single-threaded workloads, the Intel advantage is clear. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 225 versus 190, and R23 single-core shows 537 versus 453. These are the kinds of tasks that dominate older applications, spreadsheets, web browsing, and lightly threaded productivity software. The Intel chip's higher clocks and superior IPC make it the better choice for any workload that cannot fully utilize eight cores.

For multicore workloads, the Opteron's eight cores should theoretically give it an edge, but the data contradicts that expectation. Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, and R23 multicore all go to Intel by roughly 18%. This indicates that the Opteron's extra cores do not overcome its lower per-core performance and older architecture. Rendering, video encoding, and multi-threaded compilation workloads would favor the Intel part based on these results.

The Opteron does have a structural advantage in core count and L2 cache size (8 MB versus 2 MB total), which could theoretically help in highly parallel workloads that scale well beyond four threads. However, the benchmark data shows that advantage is theoretical rather than realized. The Intel part's 6 MB shared L3 and efficient design produce better measured results even in multicore tests.

Thermal envelopes are identical at 65 W TDP for both parts, so power consumption does not differentiate them. The Opteron's larger die (315 mm² versus 160 mm²) suggests it may produce more heat per unit area, but the database does not include temperature measurements.

In practical terms, the Intel i5-3550S is the stronger all-around processor. The Opteron 3280, being end-of-life and slower in every measured test, offers no benchmark-backed advantage. Users with software that could potentially exploit eight threads would still see better results on the four-core Intel part, based on the recorded scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-3550S wins all single-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 225 versus 190 for the Opteron, an 18.4% lead. In R23 single-core, it scores 537 versus 453, an 18.5% lead.

Q: Does the Opteron's 8-core design beat the Intel's 4 cores in multicore workloads?

A: No. Despite having twice the core count, the Opteron loses all multicore tests. Cinebench R23 multicore shows Intel at 3808 against 3215 for AMD, an 18.4% deficit for the Opteron.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Intel part has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Opteron has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. Intel is higher in both metrics.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Intel Core i5-3550S and the AMD Opteron 3280 have ECC memory support listed as false in the database.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel chip uses a 22 nm process, while the Opteron uses a 32 nm process. Intel also has a smaller die at 160 mm² compared to AMD's 315 mm².

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-3550S includes Intel HD 2500 graphics. The Opteron has no native integrated graphics, relying on a chipset feature on certain motherboards.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-3550S | AMD Opteron 3280 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1155 | AMD Socket AM3+ |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | K10 |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge | Zurich |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 1,200 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 315 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 384 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 8 MB |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 29.9 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2500 | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |

| Production Status | Not recorded | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-04-28 | 2012-03-19 |

| Part Number | SR0P3 | OS3280OLW8KGU |

The two processors share a 65 W TDP, DDR3 memory support, dual-channel memory buses, and locked multipliers. They differ across every other recorded specification, with Intel leading on process technology, clock speeds, and PCIe generation, while AMD counters with more cores and larger cache pools. The benchmark data, however, shows that Intel's architectural advantages translate into a consistent performance lead across all tested workloads.