AMD Opteron 3380 vs Intel Core i3-4360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clear pattern: the AMD Opteron 3380 wins every single benchmark comparison against the Intel Core i3-4360. This is a uniform sweep, with the AMD part taking all five tested workloads. The margins are also remarkably consistent, hovering around the 20% mark across the board.

Looking at the specific numbers, the Opteron 3380 scores 373 points in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, compared to 310 for the Core i3-4360. That is a 20.3% advantage for the AMD chip. The multi-core R20 test shows a similar story: 1555 points for the Opteron versus 1294 for the Intel part, again a 20.2% lead.

The single-core tests tell the exact same tale. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron 3380 posts 219 points while the i3-4360 manages 182, a 20.3% delta. The R23 single-core result is 522 for the AMD chip versus 435 for Intel, a 20% difference. The R23 multi-core run shows 3704 against 3082, a 20.2% advantage.

What makes this interesting is that the Opteron 3380 is a server/workstation part with 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-4360 is a desktop chip with 2 cores and 4 threads. The data shows the AMD part leading by roughly one-fifth in every test, regardless of whether the workload is multi-threaded or single-threaded. This consistency suggests the Opteron's higher core count and boost clock of 3.60 GHz, combined with its larger shared L3 cache of 8 MB, provide a sustained advantage over the i3's 3.70 GHz base clock and 4 MB L3.

The win tally is decisive: 5 wins for the Opteron 3380, 0 for the Core i3-4360. No benchmark in the database reverses this order. For anyone comparing these two specific processors, the recorded measurements offer no ambiguity.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly by workload type, but the winner is always the same. The AMD Opteron 3380 takes the multi-core tests with scores of 373 (R15), 1555 (R20), and 3704 (R23). These are the workloads where its 8 cores and 8 threads can be fully engaged. The Intel Core i3-4360, with only 2 cores and 4 threads, falls behind by roughly 20% in each of these multi-core runs.

Surprisingly, the Opteron 3380 also wins the single-core tests. The i3-4360 has a higher base clock (3.70 GHz) and comes from a newer architecture generation (Haswell, 22 nm) compared to the Opteron's K10 design (32 nm). Yet the recorded single-core scores still favor AMD: 219 versus 182 in R20, and 522 versus 435 in R23. The Opteron's boost clock of 3.60 GHz appears to close the clock-speed gap, and its larger cache hierarchy may help it retain the lead even in lightly threaded scenarios.

So the use-case split is simple: for both heavily parallel workloads and single-threaded tasks, the Opteron 3380 is the faster processor according to the database. The Core i3-4360 does not secure a single win in any tested category. If a workload relies on Cinebench-style rendering performance, the Opteron 3380 is the pick, and the margin is consistently around 20%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Opteron 3380 scores 3704, while the Intel Core i3-4360 scores 3082. The Opteron leads by 20.2% in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-4360 win any benchmark against the Opteron 3380?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows 5 wins for the AMD Opteron 3380 and 0 wins for the Intel Core i3-4360 across all tested Cinebench workloads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The Opteron 3380 scores 219 points, and the Core i3-4360 scores 182 points. This gives the AMD part a 20.3% advantage in single-core performance.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Opteron 3380 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-4360 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Opteron offers quadruple the physical core count and double the thread count.

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Opteron 3380 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i3-4360 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, half the Opteron's capacity.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two?

A: The AMD Opteron 3380 has a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel Core i3-4360 has a lower TDP of 54 watts, making the Intel part more power-efficient on paper.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Opteron 3380 uses 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4360 uses 2 cores and 4 threads. The Opteron's base clock is 2.60 GHz with a boost clock of 3.60 GHz; the i3-4360 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and no boost clock listed in the database.

Thermal design power also differs: the Opteron is rated at 65 watts, the i3-4360 at 54 watts. The sockets are incompatible: the Opteron uses AMD Socket AM3+, while the i3-4360 uses Intel Socket 1150.

Memory support is the same (DDR3, dual-channel), but the Opteron lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the i3-4360 has no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory support is false for both. PCIe generation differs: the Opteron is Gen 2, the i3-4360 is Gen 3.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Intel side: the i3-4360 includes Intel HD 4600, while the Opteron relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The market segments differ as well: the Opteron is marked for Server/Workstation, the i3-4360 for Desktop. The Opteron's production status is end-of-life; the i3-4360 has no recorded status. The Opteron has a launch MSRP of $229; the i3-4360 has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The underlying designs are from different eras and process nodes. The AMD Opteron 3380 uses the K10 architecture, codenamed Delhi, built on a 32 nm process. It integrates 1,200 million transistors on a die size of 315 mm². The Intel Core i3-4360 uses the Haswell architecture, built on a 22 nm process, with 1,400 million transistors on a smaller die of 177 mm². Intel is the listed foundry for its chip, while the Opteron has no foundry specified.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Opteron has 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The i3-4360 lists L1 as 64 KB per core and L2 as 256 KB per core, with 4 MB of shared L3. The Opteron's larger total cache, especially its 8 MB L3, likely contributes to its consistent 20% benchmark lead.

The generation labels also differ: the Opteron is part of the Opteron (Delhi) generation, while the i3-4360 is in the Core i3 (Haswell) generation. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Opteron's part number is OS3380OLW8KHK, while the i3-4360 has no part number recorded. Release dates are separated by roughly 17 months: the Opteron launched on 2012-12-03, the i3-4360 on 2014-04-30.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Opteron 3380 outperforms the Intel Core i3-4360 in every recorded benchmark. The Opteron leads by 20% or more in all five Cinebench tests, covering both multi-core and single-core scenarios. Its 8 cores, 8 threads, and 8 MB L3 cache give it an edge that the i3-4360 cannot overcome, despite the Intel part's higher base clock and newer 22 nm Haswell architecture.

For workloads that rely on sustained rendering performance, such as Cinebench-style multi-core tasks, the Opteron 3380 is the only sensible choice based on these measurements. Its 20.2% lead in R23 multi-core (3704 versus 3082) is substantial. Even in single-core tests, where the i3-4360's higher clock speed might be expected to help, the Opteron still wins by 20%.

The Intel Core i3-4360 does have advantages in the specification sheet: lower TDP (54 watts versus 65), PCIe Gen 3 support, integrated graphics, and a smaller die. But the benchmark data shows no performance scenario where those advantages translate into a win. The Opteron 3380 should be selected for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, especially in server or workstation contexts. The i3-4360 is the more power-conscious desktop option, but the recorded scores consistently favor AMD. For this matchup, the verdict is unambiguous: the Opteron 3380 wins all 5 head-to-head tests, and the i3-4360 wins none.