AMD Opteron 4280 vs Intel Core i3-7300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a remarkably consistent outcome: the Intel Core i3-7300 wins every single recorded Cinebench test against the AMD Opteron 4280, though the margins are uniformly narrow. Across all six head-to-head comparisons, the Intel part takes the win, but the largest advantage is a mere 0.9% in Cinebench R20 single-core. This is not a dominant performance gap; it is a pattern of persistent, small edges.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i3-7300 scores 388 against the Opteron's 385, a delta of 0.8%. The single-core R15 result is a tie at 54 points each, with the delta recorded as 0% and the win awarded to Intel by the database's criteria. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Intel chip posts 1619 multi-core versus 1607 for the Opteron, a 0.7% lead, and 228 single-core versus 226, a 0.9% advantage. The Cinebench R23 results continue the pattern: 3856 to 3828 in multi-core (0.7%) and 544 to 540 in single-core (0.7%). The Intel Core i3-7300 therefore claims all six head-to-head wins, but the average gap across tests sits at roughly 0.6 to 0.8 percentage points, which is within the range of run-to-run variation for many workloads.

What makes this interesting is the architectural context. The Opteron 4280 has eight physical cores and eight threads, while the Core i3-7300 has only two cores and four threads. Despite being outnumbered four-to-one in core count, the Intel part still edges ahead in every multi-core test. The data suggests that per-core efficiency, driven by a 4.00 GHz base clock on the Intel side versus a 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost on the AMD side, more than compensates for the core deficit. The Opteron's eight cores cannot translate into a multi-core victory, even in a render workload like Cinebench that typically scales with core count.

The single-core results are even more telling. Both processors post identical scores of 54 in R15, and the Intel part leads by just 2 points in R20 and 4 points in R23. The Opteron's 32 nm Bulldozer architecture, with its shared floating-point units and module-based design, evidently delivers competitive single-threaded performance in these tests, but the Intel Kaby Lake part at 14 nm with a much higher clock speed still comes out ahead. The recorded data does not show any test where the Opteron wins, and the largest Intel margin is less than one full percentage point.

For context, the average benchmark score for the Core i3-7300 is 1115, while the Opteron 4280 sits at 1107. Both processors land in the 31st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the AMD Ryzen 3 1200 at an average score of 1116 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-3550S at 1118 (-0.3%), and the Intel Core i3-4150 at 1119 (-0.3%). The Opteron's nearest rivals include the AMD PRO A12-8870 at 1107 (0%), the AMD Opteron 3280 at 1106 (0.1%), and the AMD Athlon X4 845 at 1106 (0.1%). In other words, both processors sit in a dense cluster of similarly performing CPUs, and their head-to-head difference is smaller than the difference between either chip and its own closest rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i3-7300 wins everywhere in the recorded benchmark suite, but the practical interpretation depends on the workload. In multi-threaded rendering, the Intel part leads by margins of 0.7% to 0.8% across R15, R20, and R23. That is a consistent but minimal advantage. In single-threaded tests, the Intel part leads by 0% in R15, 0.9% in R20, and 0.7% in R23. Again, the Intel chip is ahead, but the gap is small enough that real-world applications may not show a perceptible difference.

The use-case split is better understood through the architectural lens. The Opteron 4280 is a server and workstation part with eight cores, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports ECC memory and targets workloads that need reliability and multi-threaded throughput. The Core i3-7300 is a desktop part with two cores, four threads, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. It does not support ECC memory and is designed for mainstream desktop workloads where single-thread performance and low latency matter more than raw core counts.

The recorded benchmarks show that the Opteron's core-count advantage does not produce a win even in heavily multi-threaded Cinebench tests. This suggests that workloads which scale well with per-core performance, such as lightly threaded applications, legacy software, or games that depend on high clock speeds, would favor the Intel part. The Opteron's eight cores might still be useful in scenarios where the software is explicitly tuned for many threads and where the memory bandwidth and cache hierarchy of a server platform matter, but the Cinebench data in the database does not reflect such an advantage.

For users who need ECC memory support, the Opteron is the only option between the two, as the Core i3-7300 lacks this feature. For users who need integrated graphics, the Intel part includes an Intel HD 630 iGPU, while the Opteron has no integrated graphics at all. The Intel chip also supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Opteron supports DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. This memory bandwidth difference is substantial and could affect memory-intensive workloads, though the Cinebench scores do not isolate this variable.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-7300 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, using the Kaby Lake architecture. It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and no boost clock. The cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and it does not support ECC memory. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The chip includes integrated Intel HD 630 graphics and is packaged for the Intel Socket 1151. It was released in early 2017 and is still marked as active in production.

The AMD Opteron 4280 is a very different design. It uses the Bulldozer architecture on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 315 mm² and 1,200 million transistors. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The cache configuration is 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus at 25.6 GB/s, and it does support ECC memory. The PCIe interface is Gen 2. There is no integrated graphics. The chip is designed for the AMD Socket C32 and targets the server and workstation segment. It was released in November 2011 and is now marked as end-of-life.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 32 nm. This explains why the Intel part can achieve a 4.00 GHz base clock with a 51 W TDP, while the Opteron needs a 95 W TDP to reach 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The Intel chip draws less power and runs at a higher clock speed, which is a direct benefit of the newer manufacturing process. The Opteron's eight cores on an older process require more power and produce more heat, yet still cannot outperform the two-core Intel part in the recorded tests.

The memory support also differs sharply. The Intel chip uses DDR4 at 38.4 GB/s, while the Opteron uses DDR3 at 25.6 GB/s. This is a 50% bandwidth advantage for the Intel part, which can matter in memory-bound workloads. The Intel chip also has PCIe Gen 3 versus Gen 2 on the Opteron, doubling the potential I/O bandwidth. The Opteron counters with ECC memory support, which is essential for error-sensitive server workloads, and a larger L2 cache (8 MB versus 512 KB total on the Intel side) plus a larger shared L3 (8 MB versus 4 MB).

The market segments tell the story: the Core i3-7300 is a desktop part, while the Opteron 4280 is a server and workstation part. The Opteron's launch MSRP was $255. The Intel chip has no recorded launch MSRP. The Opteron's part number is OS4280WLU8KGU, and the Intel part number is SR359. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-7300 outperforms the AMD Opteron 4280 in every recorded benchmark, but the margins are tiny. The largest lead is 0.9% in Cinebench R20 single-core, and the smallest is a 0% delta in Cinebench R15 single-core. Both processors sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 8 points (1115 versus 1107). This is not a case of one chip being clearly superior; it is a case of the Intel part having a slight edge across the board.

The choice between the two should be driven by platform requirements rather than raw performance. The Opteron 4280 offers ECC memory support, eight physical cores, a socket designed for server platforms, and a much larger cache pool. The Core i3-7300 offers a higher clock speed, a newer process node, lower power consumption, DDR4 memory support, integrated graphics, and PCIe Gen 3. For a desktop user building a mainstream system, the Intel part is the better fit: it is active in production, draws less power, and includes an iGPU. For a server or workstation deployment that requires ECC memory and can use eight cores, the Opteron is the only one of the two that supports that feature, though it is end-of-life and the benchmark data does not show it winning any test.

The recorded Cinebench results suggest that users who prioritize single-thread performance, lower power consumption, or modern platform features should choose the Core i3-7300. Users who need ECC memory, a server socket, or a larger cache hierarchy should choose the Opteron 4280, accepting that its performance in these specific tests is slightly lower. Neither chip is likely to feel dramatically different in everyday use, given the narrow deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 scores 3856, while the AMD Opteron 4280 scores 3828, a 0.7% lead for Intel.

Q: Do the two CPUs support the same memory type?

A: No. The Intel Core i3-7300 supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD Opteron 4280 supports DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Opteron 4280 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i3-7300 does not.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD Opteron 4280 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 has an average benchmark score of 1115, and the AMD Opteron 4280 has an average benchmark score of 1107.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics, if any?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 includes Intel HD 630 integrated graphics. The AMD Opteron 4280 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the TDP values for these two chips?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 has a TDP of 51 W, and the AMD Opteron 4280 has a TDP of 95 W.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Core i3-7300 and AMD Opteron 4280:

• Cores: 2 (Intel) versus 8 (AMD)
• Threads: 4 (Intel) versus 8 (AMD)
• Base clock: 4.00 GHz (Intel) versus 2.80 GHz (AMD)
• Boost clock: none (Intel) versus 3.50 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 51 W (Intel) versus 95 W (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1151 (Intel) versus AMD Socket C32 (AMD)
• Architecture: Kaby Lake (Intel) versus Bulldozer (AMD)
• Codename: Kaby Lake (Intel) versus Valencia (AMD)
• Process node 14 nm (Intel) versus 32 nm (AMD)
• Foundry: Intel (Intel) versus GlobalFoundries (AMD)
• Transistors: not recorded (Intel) versus 1,200 million (AMD)
• Die size: not recorded (Intel) versus 315 mm² (AMD)
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core (Intel) versus 384 KB total (AMD)
• L2 cache: 256 KB per core (Intel) versus 8 MB total (AMD)
• L3 cache: 4 MB shared (Intel) versus 8 MB shared (AMD)
• Memory support: DDR4 (Intel) versus DDR3 (AMD)
• Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s (Intel) versus 25.6 GB/s (AMD)
• ECC memory: false (Intel) versus true (AMD)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes CPU only (Intel) versus Gen 2 (AMD)
• Integrated graphics: Intel HD 630 (Intel) versus none (AMD)
• Market segment: Desktop (Intel) versus Server/Workstation (AMD)
• Production status: Active (Intel) versus End-of-life (AMD)
• Release date: 2017-01-02 (Intel) versus 2011-11-13 (AMD)
• Part number: SR359 (Intel) versus OS4280WLU8KGU (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: not recorded (Intel) versus $255 (AMD)