AMD Opteron 3365 vs Intel Core i3-7320 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly along workload type, but not in the way the core counts might suggest. The AMD Opteron 3365, with eight cores and eight threads, does not win a single head-to-head benchmark in the database. The Intel Core i3-7320, with only two cores and four threads, wins all five recorded comparisons. This is a decisive sweep in favor of the Intel part across every Cinebench iteration and workload type.

The Opteron 3365 was designed for server and workstation duty, and its benchmark profile reflects that positioning. It posts a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 349, an R20 multi-core score of 1457, and an R23 multi-core score of 3470. Its single-core results are 205 in R20 and 489 in R23. The Intel Core i3-7320 counters with 408 in R15 multi-core, 1703 in R20 multi-core, and 4057 in R23 multi-core, alongside single-core scores of 240 in R20 and 572 in R23.

The Intel part wins by a consistent margin of roughly 14.5% in every test, whether multi-core or single-core. This uniformity is notable. The Opteron's eight cores do not provide any advantage in multi-threaded Cinebench workloads against the i3-7320's two cores with Hyper-Threading. The data indicates that the Intel processor's higher base clock of 4.10 GHz, compared to the Opteron's 2.30 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, is sufficient to overcome the core deficit in these specific tests.

Percentile rankings reinforce this picture. The Opteron 3365 sits at the 34th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core i3-7320 sits at the 33rd percentile. These are nearly identical positions, separated by just one percentile point, despite the Intel part winning every head-to-head test. The average benchmark score for the Opteron is 1194, and for the Intel part it is 1173. This means the Opteron has a slightly higher average score across all benchmarks in the database, even though it loses every direct comparison. The explanation lies in the fact that the Opteron's nearest rivals include the AMD Athlon PRO 300U, Intel Core i3-4170, and Intel Core i7-8665UE, all with an average score of 1193, while the i3-7320's rivals are older Intel mobile and desktop parts with slightly lower averages.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The AMD Opteron 3365 uses the K10 architecture under the codename Delhi, part of the Opteron 3000 series. It is built on a 32 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-7320 uses the Kaby Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process node at Intel, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Opteron 3365 has 384 KB of L1 cache, 4 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i3-7320 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron's larger L3 pool is a direct consequence of its eight-core design, while the i3-7320's smaller L3 is typical of a dual-core part with a high clock speed.

Memory support also diverges. The Opteron uses DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Core i3-7320 uses DDR4 memory, also dual-channel, with a higher recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory, despite the Opteron's server orientation. The Opteron offers PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel part offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU only.

The integrated graphics situation is asymmetric. The Opteron 3365 has integrated graphics available only on certain motherboards, described as a chipset feature. The Core i3-7320 includes Intel HD 630 graphics directly on the processor. This makes the Intel part a more complete package for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU.

Production status differs as well. The Opteron 3365 is end-of-life, while the Core i3-7320 is listed as active. The Intel part has a release date of January 2, 2017, while the Opteron has no recorded release date. The Opteron uses the AMD Socket AM3+, and the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1151. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every recorded head-to-head benchmark shows the same outcome: the Intel Core i3-7320 wins, and by nearly the same percentage each time. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 349 against the Intel's 408, a delta of -14.5% in favor of the Intel part. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Opteron scores 1457 against 1703, a delta of -14.4%. The single-core results are similar, with R20 single-core showing 205 versus 240, a delta of -14.6%, and R23 single-core showing 489 versus 572, a delta of -14.5%.

The most telling comparison is in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Opteron, with eight physical cores, scores 3470. The Intel, with two cores and four threads, scores 4057. This is a 14.5% advantage for the Intel part in a workload that is traditionally considered multi-threaded and should favor more cores. The fact that the Intel part wins by the same margin in multi-core as it does in single-core suggests that the clock speed advantage of 4.10 GHz versus the Opteron's 3.30 GHz boost is the dominant factor in these tests.

The delta percentages are remarkably consistent, ranging from -14.4% to -14.6% across all five tests. This uniformity indicates that the performance gap is not workload-specific but rather a general property of the two processors in Cinebench. The Opteron's eight cores do not help it close the gap in multi-core tests, and the Intel part's high clock speed does not give it an outsized advantage in single-core tests. The gap is simply a flat 14.5% in every scenario.

For context, the Opteron's nearest rivals by average score are the AMD Athlon PRO 300U, Intel Core i3-4170, and Intel Core i7-8665UE, all within 0.1% of its average score. The Core i3-7320's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3635QM and Intel Core i7-2960XM, with the i3-7320 sitting 0.3% to 0.4% above them. This places both processors in a similar performance neighborhood overall, despite the Intel part's consistent head-to-head wins.

Specification Differences

The database records the following differences between the two processors:

• Cores: Opteron 3365 has 8, Core i3-7320 has 2.
• Threads: Opteron 3365 has 8, Core i3-7320 has 4.
• Base clock: Opteron 3365 runs at 2.30 GHz, Core i3-7320 at 4.10 GHz.
• Boost clock: Opteron 3365 boosts to 3.30 GHz, Core i3-7320 has no boost clock recorded.
• TDP: Opteron 3365 is rated at 65 W, Core i3-7320 at 51 W.
• Socket: Opteron 3365 uses AMD Socket AM3+, Core i3-7320 uses Intel Socket 1151.
• Architecture: Opteron 3365 uses K10, Core i3-7320 uses Kaby Lake.
• Process node: Opteron 3365 is on 32 nm, Core i3-7320 is on 14 nm.
• Foundry: Opteron 3365 uses GlobalFoundries, Core i3-7320 uses Intel.
• Transistors: Opteron 3365 has 1,200 million, Core i3-7320 has no recorded figure.
• Die size: Opteron 3365 is 315 mm², Core i3-7320 has no recorded figure.
• L1 cache: Opteron 3365 has 384 KB, Core i3-7320 has 64 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Opteron 3365 has 4 MB, Core i3-7320 has 256 KB per core.
• L3 cache: Opteron 3365 has 8 MB shared, Core i3-7320 has 4 MB shared.
• Memory support: Opteron 3365 uses DDR3, Core i3-7320 uses DDR4.
• Memory bandwidth: Opteron 3365 is 29.9 GB/s, Core i3-7320 is 38.4 GB/s.
• PCIe: Opteron 3365 is Gen 2, Core i3-7320 is Gen 3 with 16 lanes on CPU only.
• Integrated graphics: Opteron 3365 is chipset-dependent, Core i3-7320 has Intel HD 630.
• Market segment: Opteron 3365 is server/workstation, Core i3-7320 is desktop.
• Production status: Opteron 3365 is end-of-life, Core i3-7320 is active.
• Release date: Opteron 3365 has none recorded, Core i3-7320 is January 2, 2017.
• Part number: Opteron 3365 is OS3365OLW8KHK, Core i3-7320 is SR358.

Both processors share dual-channel memory buses, no ECC support, and locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 3365 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-7320 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Why does the 2-core Intel processor beat the 8-core AMD processor in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Core i3-7320 wins every recorded Cinebench test by approximately 14.5%, including multi-core tests. Its base clock of 4.10 GHz is significantly higher than the Opteron's 2.30 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, which appears to compensate for the core count disadvantage in these workloads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Opteron 3365 has a TDP of 65 W, while the Core i3-7320 has a TDP of 51 W. The Intel part consumes less power according to its rating.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The database records ECC memory support as false for both the Opteron 3365 and the Core i3-7320.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i3-7320 includes Intel HD 630 graphics. The Opteron 3365 has integrated graphics only on certain motherboards as a chipset feature.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The Opteron 3365 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s using DDR3. The Core i3-7320 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s using DDR4.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Opteron 3365 has an average benchmark score of 1194, and the Core i3-7320 has an average score of 1173. The Opteron sits at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel part sits at the 33rd percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in every recorded benchmark: the Intel Core i3-7320. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests by a consistent margin of about 14.5%, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. For anyone choosing between these two based purely on the benchmark results, the Intel part is the better performer in the measured tests.

The Opteron 3365 does not win any benchmark in the database. Its eight cores and eight threads do not translate into a multi-core advantage over the two-core, four-thread Intel part in Cinebench. The Intel processor's 4.10 GHz base clock, combined with its newer Kaby Lake architecture on a 14 nm process, is sufficient to overcome the Opteron's core advantage. The Opteron's K10 architecture on 32 nm is substantially older, and the data reflects this.

The Opteron's average benchmark score of 1194 is slightly higher than the Intel's 1173, and its percentile ranking is one point higher at 34 versus 33. This suggests that in the broader database, the Opteron performs comparably to the i3-7320 across a wider range of tests. However, in the specific Cinebench tests recorded for both, the Intel part is consistently ahead. The Opteron's nearest rivals all score 1193, within 0.1% of its average, while the Intel part's rivals score between 1169 and 1178, placing it in a slightly lower overall band.

For server or workstation workloads outside Cinebench, the Opteron's eight cores might offer advantages in applications that scale differently, but the recorded data does not support that conclusion. The Intel Core i3-7320 is the better choice based on the head-to-head results, its lower TDP of 51 W versus 65 W, its active production status, and its newer architecture. The Opteron 3365 remains relevant only in systems that specifically require an AMD Socket AM3+ platform or that need the Opteron's particular feature set, such as its larger 8 MB shared L3 cache. For raw Cinebench performance, the Intel part is the decisive pick.