AMD Opteron 4280 vs Intel Pentium 6805 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Opteron 4280 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Pentium 6805 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Opteron offers four times the physical core count.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Opteron 4280 has an average benchmark score of 1107, while the Intel Pentium 6805 scores 1099. The Opteron edges ahead by approximately 0.7% in this aggregate metric.

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Opteron 4280 wins with a score of 3828 versus 3801 for the Intel Pentium 6805, a difference of 0.7%. This is the largest multi-core margin recorded in the head-to-head tests.

Q: Are their single-core scores different?

A: In Cinebench R15, both processors record an identical score of 54. In Cinebench R20, the Opteron scores 226 versus 225 for the Pentium, and in R23 the Opteron scores 540 versus 536. The single-core gaps are minimal, ranging from 0% to 0.7%.

Q: What are the TDP and socket differences?

A: The AMD Opteron 4280 has a TDP of 95 watts and uses AMD Socket C32, while the Intel Pentium 6805 has a TDP of 15 watts and uses Intel BGA 1526. The Pentium draws substantially less power.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Opteron 4280 supports ECC memory. The Intel Pentium 6805 does not support ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD Opteron 4280 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all 6 recorded tests. However, the margins are remarkably narrow. In multi-core tests, the Opteron leads by 0.5% to 0.7% depending on the Cinebench version. In single-core tests, the advantage is even smaller, ranging from a tie in R15 to a 0.7% lead in R23.

Who should pick which? A server or workstation environment with existing AMD Socket C32 infrastructure would favor the Opteron 4280. It offers 8 physical cores, ECC memory support, and a 95-watt TDP suited for always-on workloads. The Intel Pentium 6805, with its 15-watt TDP and integrated UHD Graphics (32EU), fits mobile or low-power embedded scenarios where energy efficiency and a smaller footprint matter more than raw core count. The Pentium also supports PCIe Gen 3 and DDR4 memory, which are newer interface standards than the Opteron's PCIe Gen 2 and DDR3.

For users starting from scratch with no platform loyalty, the benchmark data shows near-identical performance. The Opteron's 8 cores do not translate into a meaningful performance advantage in these Cinebench workloads, which suggests that the Pentium's newer architecture compensates for its lower core count. The decision then rests on platform requirements: ECC support and server-grade features point to AMD, while low power and integrated graphics point to Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are notable for their consistency. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD Opteron 4280 wins, but never by more than 0.7%. This is a statistical tie in practical terms, yet the pattern is uniform.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 385 against the Pentium's 383, a 0.5% margin. The single-core R15 test is a perfect tie at 54 points for both. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron leads multi-core with 1607 versus 1596, a 0.7% gap, and single-core with 226 versus 225, a 0.4% margin. In Cinebench R23, the Opteron again takes multi-core with 3828 versus 3801 (0.7%) and single-core with 540 versus 536 (0.7%).

The interpretation is straightforward: the 8-core Opteron does not dominate the 2-core Pentium in these workloads. The Opteron's Bulldozer architecture from 2011 appears to deliver per-core performance that is substantially weaker than the Pentium's Ice Lake architecture from 2020. The Pentium's higher base clock of 1100 MHz is misleading; its boost clock of 3.00 GHz is lower than the Opteron's 3.50 GHz, yet the Pentium still nearly matches it in every test. This suggests the Ice Lake microarchitecture extracts far more work per clock cycle than Bulldozer.

For users relying on multi-threaded applications, the Opteron's 8 cores should theoretically provide a large advantage. The fact that it only leads by 0.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core indicates that the workload is not scaling with core count in a way that benefits the Opteron. This could be due to Bulldozer's module-based design, where pairs of cores share resources, limiting true parallel throughput.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The AMD Opteron 4280 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Pentium 6805 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are listed as 2.80 GHz for the Opteron and 1100.00 MHz for the Pentium, though the latter's boost clock of 3.00 GHz is lower than the Opteron's 3.50 GHz.

TDP is a major differentiator: the Opteron draws 95 watts, the Pentium only 15 watts. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket C32 versus Intel BGA 1526. Memory support differs with the Opteron using DDR3 and the Pentium using DDR4. Memory bandwidth is nearly double on the Pentium: 51.2 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s. The Opteron supports ECC memory, the Pentium does not. PCIe generations differ: Gen 2 on AMD, Gen 3 on Intel. The Pentium includes integrated UHD Graphics (32EU), while the Opteron has no integrated graphics.

Production status is end-of-life for both. The Opteron was released in November 2011 with a launch MSRP of $255. The Pentium was released in September 2020 with a launch MSRP of $161. The Opteron's part number is OS4280WLU8KGU, the Pentium's is SRK0U.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans nearly a decade of design philosophy. The AMD Opteron 4280 uses the Bulldozer architecture, codenamed Valencia, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors into a 315 mm² die. Cache is organized as 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3.

The Intel Pentium 6805 uses the Ice Lake architecture, specifically the Ice Lake-Y variant with a Sunny Cove microarchitecture. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel with a much smaller 123 mm² die size. Cache is structured differently: 80 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. The Pentium's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

These architectural differences explain the benchmark results. Bulldozer was designed for high core counts with shared floating-point units, a controversial approach that often underperformed in single-threaded tasks. Ice Lake, by contrast, emphasizes per-core efficiency and instruction-level parallelism. The Pentium's 2 cores with 4 threads leverage a modern out-of-order design that nearly matches the Opteron's 8 cores in Cinebench.

The process node advantage is significant: 10 nm versus 32 nm. This allows the Pentium to achieve comparable performance at a fraction of the power draw (15 watts versus 95 watts). The smaller die size (123 mm² versus 315 mm²) further reflects the efficiency gains.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 4280 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, but the practical significance is limited by the tiny margins. Its strengths are most apparent in multi-core tests, where it leads by 0.7% in both Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core. The Opteron also holds a perfect tie in R15 single-core and small leads in R20 and R23 single-core. For workloads that are heavily threaded and can use 8 physical cores, the Opteron is nominally the better choice, though the data suggests the advantage is marginal.

The Intel Pentium 6805 wins no benchmarks, yet it wins the efficiency argument decisively. Its 15-watt TDP is about 16% of the Opteron's 95-watt TDP. It also provides integrated graphics, which the Opteron lacks entirely. For mobile devices, compact systems, or any deployment where power consumption and heat dissipation are critical, the Pentium is the clear choice despite losing every compute test.

The Pentium also advantages in platform modernity: DDR4 memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth versus DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 3 versus Gen 2. These differences do not show up in Cinebench scores but matter for real-world I/O and memory-bound workloads.

In summary, the Opteron wins on paper in all compute benchmarks, but the Pentium wins on efficiency, platform features, and integrated graphics. Users with existing server infrastructure and ECC requirements should choose the Opteron. Users prioritizing low power and mobile form factors should choose the Pentium. The benchmark data alone cannot separate these processors meaningfully; the decision must be driven by use case and platform constraints.