AMD Opteron 3380 vs Intel Core i5-4440S Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually close contest between the Intel Core i5-4440S and the AMD Opteron 3380. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel chip emerges victorious, but the margins are razor-thin. The largest single advantage appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i5-4440S scores 526 against the Opteron's 522, a delta of 0.8%. That is the widest gap in the entire head-to-head set.

Multi-core results tell a similar story of marginal Intel supremacy. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-4440S posts 375 versus 373 for the Opteron, a 0.5% edge. The R20 multicore test shows 1566 against 1555, which translates to a 0.7% lead. The R23 multicore run yields 3729 for Intel and 3704 for AMD, again a 0.7% difference. These are not the kind of decisive victories that typically separate competing architectures; they are statistical noise-level margins that could flip with silicon lottery variance.

Single-core performance follows the same pattern. The R15 single-core test is a perfect tie at 52 points each, with the delta listed as 0%. The R20 single-core result gives Intel a 220-to-219 advantage, a 0.5% lead. The aforementioned R23 single-core gap of 0.8% rounds out Intel's sweep.

What makes these numbers particularly striking is the architectural disparity. The Opteron 3380 packs 8 physical cores against the i5-4440S's 4 cores with 4 threads. In a purely thread-count-driven workload, one would expect the AMD part to dominate multi-core benchmarks. Yet the data shows the opposite, with Intel's Haswell architecture extracting comparable or slightly better throughput from half the core count. This suggests that the per-core efficiency of the i5-4440S more than compensates for its numerical disadvantage in raw core presence.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this parity. The i5-4440S holds an average score of 1078, while the Opteron 3380 sits at 1071. That 0.7% difference aligns closely with the head-to-head deltas. In terms of global positioning, the Intel chip lands in the 30th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 29th percentile. For practical purposes, these two processors occupy the same performance tier, despite their completely different internal designs.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The i5-4440S's closest competitor, the AMD A12-9800, averages 1081 points, a -0.2% delta. The Opteron 3380's nearest rival, the AMD Athlon X4 880K, matches it exactly at 1071 points with a 0% delta. Both chips are bracketed by similar-performance parts, confirming that their head-to-head closeness reflects genuine market positioning rather than benchmark anomalies.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-4440S wins all 6 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Opteron 3380. The AMD part records zero wins in this matchup.

Q: How large is the performance difference between the two?

A: The largest delta is 0.8% in Cinebench R23 single-core. Other deltas range from 0% (R15 single-core tie) to 0.7% in both R20 and R23 multi-core tests. The average benchmark scores differ by only 7 points out of roughly 1075.

Q: Does the Opteron's 8-core design help it in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Surprisingly, no. Despite having 8 cores versus the i5-4440S's 4 cores, the Opteron 3380 loses every multi-core test. In R15 multicore, it scores 373 versus 375; in R20, 1555 versus 1566; and in R23, 3704 versus 3729.

Q: What are the single-core performance differences?

A: The two chips are virtually identical in single-core tests. R15 single-core is a exact tie at 52 points. R20 single-core favors Intel by 1 point (220 vs 219). R23 single-core gives Intel a 4-point edge (526 vs 522).

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i5-4440S's nearest rival, the AMD A12-9800, scores 1081 on average, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel chip. The Opteron 3380's nearest rival, the AMD Athlon X4 880K, matches it exactly at 1071. Both chips sit in similar competitive territory.

Q: Which chip has a higher global performance percentile?

A: The Intel Core i5-4440S sits at the 30th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Opteron 3380 sits at the 29th percentile. This 1-percentile difference reflects the marginal overall performance edge Intel holds.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is vast, yet their benchmark results are nearly identical. The Intel Core i5-4440S uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, manufactured by Intel. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 3380 uses the K10 architecture on a 32 nm process node, with 1,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 315 mm² die. This means Intel achieves higher performance density on a smaller, more advanced process.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The i5-4440S offers 4 cores and 4 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Opteron 3380 provides 8 cores and 8 threads, doubling the physical core count. Cache hierarchies also differ fundamentally. Intel allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a 6 MB shared L3 cache. AMD's design features 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron's larger aggregate cache (16 MB total versus roughly 7.25 MB for Intel) might be expected to aid performance, yet the benchmarks show no such advantage.

The integrated graphics situation is notably different. The i5-4440S includes Intel HD 4600 graphics directly on the package. The Opteron 3380 has no integrated graphics of its own, instead relying on a chipset feature available on certain motherboards. This makes the Intel part a more self-contained solution for systems without discrete graphics.

PCIe generation also differs, with Intel supporting Gen 3 and AMD limited to Gen 2. This could affect bandwidth for high-speed peripherals, though the benchmark data does not directly measure this. Memory support is identical in type (DDR3) and bus width (dual-channel), but the Opteron lists a specific memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Intel part does not provide a comparable figure in the data.

Production status separates them further. The Opteron 3380 is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-4440S has no production status listed, implying it may still be in some form of availability. Foundry information is absent for AMD, whereas Intel is explicitly listed as its own foundry partner.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. Core count and thread count lead the list: 4 cores/4 threads for Intel versus 8 cores/8 threads for AMD. Base clock speeds are close, with the i5-4440S at 2.80 GHz and the Opteron at 2.60 GHz. Boost clocks reverse the order: Intel reaches 3.30 GHz, while AMD pushes higher to 3.60 GHz.

Process node technology separates them by a full generation step. Intel uses 22 nm, while AMD uses 32 nm. This translates into different transistor counts (1,400 million versus 1,200 million) and die sizes (177 mm² versus 315 mm²). The Opteron's die is nearly twice as large physically, yet houses fewer transistors.

Cache configurations differ in structure. Intel provides per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) allocations plus a 6 MB shared L3. AMD aggregates L1 at 384 KB total, uses 8 MB of L2, and shares 8 MB of L3. The L3 cache is larger on AMD (8 MB versus 6 MB), but Intel's per-core L1/L2 allocations are more generous on a per-core basis.

Socket compatibility is entirely different: Intel Socket 1150 versus AMD Socket AM3+. The Opteron lists a memory bandwidth figure of 29.9 GB/s, which the i5-4440S does not specify. PCIe generation differs (Gen 3 versus Gen 2), and integrated graphics presence varies (Intel HD 4600 versus chipset-dependent feature).

Market segments diverge: Intel targets Desktop, while AMD aims at Server/Workstation. Release dates show the Opteron arriving on 2012-12-03, about nine months before the i5-4440S on 2013-08-31. The AMD part carries a launch MSRP of $229, while the Intel part has no launch MSRP listed. The Opteron is officially end-of-life, a status not assigned to the Intel chip. Part numbers also differ (SR14L versus OS3380OLW8KHK), as do architecture codenames (Haswell versus Delhi).

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-4440S wins every benchmark category in the head-to-head data, making the "where each wins" analysis one-sided in raw numbers. However, the context matters. Intel's victories range from 0% to 0.8%, which in practical terms means neither chip offers a meaningful performance advantage in these Cinebench workloads. The i5-4440S's wins are consistent but marginal, suggesting that it holds a slight efficiency edge across both single-core and multi-core scenarios.

For workloads that are sensitive to per-core performance, the i5-4440S's Haswell architecture demonstrates better instruction-level efficiency. Despite lower boost clocks (3.30 GHz versus 3.60 GHz), it still edges out the Opteron in all single-core tests. This points to Intel's architectural superiority in extracting work per clock cycle, even when AMD's higher boost frequency should theoretically compensate.

Multi-threaded workloads present a more complex picture. The Opteron 3380 has double the core count, which should give it a decisive advantage in heavily threaded applications. Yet the benchmark results show Intel winning these tests too, albeit by less than 1%. This indicates that the Opteron's 8 cores are not scaling effectively, possibly due to the older K10 architecture's limitations in core-to-core communication or memory latency.

The Opteron's realistic "win" scenario is not visible in these benchmarks but can be inferred from its specification. In workloads that specifically benefit from large aggregate caches (16 MB total versus ~7.25 MB for Intel) or where the 8-core configuration allows for more parallel system processes, the AMD part could theoretically hold its own. The data does not directly measure such scenarios, so this remains speculative.

For systems requiring integrated graphics out of the box, the i5-4440S wins by including Intel HD 4600. The Opteron's reliance on motherboard chipset features for display output makes it less self-sufficient. In server environments where discrete graphics are standard, this difference matters little.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a picture of two processors that are functionally equivalent in performance, despite radically different designs. The Intel Core i5-4440S wins all six head-to-head tests, but its largest margin is 0.8%. The AMD Opteron 3380 loses every comparison, yet its average benchmark score of 1071 trails Intel's 1078 by only 0.7%. These are not differences that users would notice in real-world applications.

Who should pick the i5-4440S? Users who value the 22 nm process efficiency, integrated graphics capability, and PCIe Gen 3 support. The 4-core/4-thread design with a 3.30 GHz boost clock delivers single-core performance that edges out the Opteron, making it suitable for lightly threaded desktop applications. Its smaller die size (177 mm² versus 315 mm²) suggests lower manufacturing complexity and potentially better thermal characteristics, though TDP is identical at 65 watts for both.

Who should pick the Opteron 3380? Users in server or workstation environments that prioritize raw core count over per-core performance. The 8-core configuration provides headroom for parallel system tasks, even if Cinebench results do not show a benefit. The larger L3 cache (8 MB) and total cache footprint (16 MB) could serve workloads with high data locality. Its 3.60 GHz boost clock is the highest frequency in this comparison.

Ultimately, the data suggests that release date matters. The Opteron 3380 launched on 2012-12-03, while the i5-4440S arrived on 2013-08-31. The newer Intel architecture achieves parity or slight superiority against an older AMD design with twice the cores. The Opteron is end-of-life, which may affect long-term availability. The i5-4440S has no such status. For most users, the Intel chip's consistent, if narrow, benchmark sweep makes it the safer choice based purely on measured performance.