CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of the head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Opteron 4284 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with the Opteron 4334 recording zero wins. The 4284 leads by a consistent margin of 15.3% to 15.4% across every benchmark listed.

Q: How do the two chips compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 4334 has an average benchmark score of 1155, while the AMD Opteron 4284 scores 1146. Despite the 4284 winning every head-to-head test, the 4334 holds a 0.8% higher average score, indicating that the 4334 performs relatively better in other workloads not covered by the Cinebench suite.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor, and how close are they?

A: The Opteron 4334’s closest rival is the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312, which scores 1156 (a -0.1% deltaPct from the 4334). The Opteron 4284’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-2600S, which scores 1146 (a 0% deltaPct). Both processors sit in a tightly packed performance cluster, with all nearest rivals within 0.6% of their respective scores.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Opteron 4284 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Opteron 4334 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The 4284 offers two additional cores and two additional threads, which contributes to its multi-threaded performance lead.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket and process node?

A: Yes, both use the AMD Socket C32 and are built on a 32 nm process node. They also share the same transistor count (1,200 million) and die size (315 mm²), but they use different architectures: the 4334 is Piledriver (codename Seoul), while the 4284 is Bulldozer (codename Valencia).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Opteron 4284 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Opteron 4334 does not. This is a notable feature difference for server workloads where error correction is critical, as the 4284 also specifies dual-channel memory and a 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to the same Opteron 4000 series and share the AMD Socket C32, but they are built on different microarchitectures. The Opteron 4334 uses the Piledriver architecture with the codename Seoul, while the Opteron 4284 uses the older Bulldozer architecture with the codename Valencia. This architectural split is significant: Piledriver is a refined iteration of Bulldozer, typically offering improved instruction scheduling and efficiency, though the data here shows the older architecture holding a performance edge in these specific tests.

Both chips are fabricated on a 32 nm process node, with identical transistor counts (1,200 million) and die sizes (315 mm²). The 4284 is explicitly listed with GlobalFoundries as its foundry, while the 4334’s foundry is not specified. The 4284 was released earlier, on 2011-11-13, compared to the 4334’s 2012-12-03, giving the older chip a year of production head start.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The 4334 has 288 KB of L1 cache, 6 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The 4284 has 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. This means the 4284 carries 96 KB more L1, 2 MB more L2, and an identical L3 pool. The larger L1 and L2 caches on the 4284 align with its higher core count, as each core module typically requires dedicated cache resources.

Memory support also diverges. Both support DDR3, but the 4284 specifies dual-channel memory with a 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the 4334 lists no memory bus or bandwidth details. The 4284 also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability that the 4334 lacks. Additionally, the 4284 is listed with PCIe Gen 2 support, while the 4334 has no PCIe specification in the data.

The 4284 is marked as end-of-life production status, while the 4334’s production status is not listed. Both are classified as Server/Workstation market segments, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 4284 has a launch MSRP of $316, while the 4334 has no launch MSRP recorded. Finally, the 4284’s generation is listed as Opteron (Valencia), while the 4334’s is Opteron (Seoul), reinforcing their distinct architectural lineages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Opteron 4284 wins every single head-to-head comparison, with five wins and zero losses. The margin is remarkably consistent across all tests, hovering between 15.3% and 15.4% in favor of the 4284. This uniformity suggests a systematic advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 4284 scores 399 versus the 4334’s 338, a 15.3% lead. This is the smallest relative advantage in the suite. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the 4284 scores 1665 against 1409, a 15.4% gap. The single-core R20 test shows the 4284 at 234 and the 4334 at 198, again a 15.4% difference. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 4284 reaches 3965 while the 4334 manages 3356, preserving the 15.4% margin. The R23 single-core test completes the sweep: 559 for the 4284 versus 473 for the 4334, also a 15.4% lead.

The consistency of the deltaPct values across both multi-core and single-core tests is notable. A 15.4% advantage in single-threaded workloads suggests the 4284’s higher boost clock (3.70 GHz versus 3.50 GHz) plays a role, despite the 4334 having a higher base clock (3.10 GHz versus 3.00 GHz). The 4284’s two additional cores explain the multi-core wins, but the single-core victories point to architectural efficiency or clock behavior that favors the Bulldozer design in these specific Cinebench versions.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The 4334 averages 1155, slightly above the 4284’s 1146. This implies that outside the Cinebench suite, the 4334 performs better relative to its rivals. The 4334’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312, scores 1156 (-0.1% deltaPct), while the 4284’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-2600S, scores 1146 (0% deltaPct). The 4334 also sits just 0.5% above the Intel Core i5-4430 (1149), and 0.6% below the AMD Opteron 6212 (1162). The 4284 is 0.1% below the Intel Core i7-3612QE (1147) and 0.2% above the AMD Opteron 4332 HE (1144).

The percentile rankings are nearly identical: the 4334 is at the 33rd percentile of all CPUs, while the 4284 is at the 32nd. This places both in the lower-middle tier of the overall CPU landscape, with the 4334 holding a marginal edge in percentile despite losing every head-to-head test.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. For raw Cinebench performance, the AMD Opteron 4284 is the definitive winner, taking all five head-to-head tests with a consistent 15.3-15.4% margin. Its eight cores and higher boost clock (3.70 GHz) give it a structural advantage over the six-core, 3.50 GHz 4334. If the workload is heavily multi-threaded and Cinebench is representative, the 4284 is the better choice.

However, the average benchmark score and percentile data complicate the verdict. The 4334 holds a higher average score (1155 versus 1146) and a slightly better percentile rank (33rd versus 32nd). This suggests that in a broader set of workloads, the 4334 may be more balanced or better optimized, despite losing all Cinebench comparisons. The 4334’s Piledriver architecture, while newer, may offer improvements in areas not captured by these tests.

The 4284 also brings server-specific features that the 4334 lacks: ECC memory support, dual-channel memory with a specified 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 2. For mission-critical server applications where data integrity and memory throughput matter, the 4284 is the more capable platform. The 4334’s lack of ECC support is a significant disqualifier for many enterprise deployments.

The 4284’s end-of-life status and earlier release date (2011 versus 2012) mean it may be harder to source new units, but its performance and feature set remain competitive. The 4334, with no production status listed, may still be available but offers fewer server-relevant features.

In summary, the Opteron 4284 is the choice for maximum multi-threaded Cinebench performance and server-grade features like ECC. The Opteron 4334 is the choice if average benchmark scores across a wider workload mix are the priority, or if newer architecture is preferred. The data does not support a universal recommendation; the correct pick depends on whether the workload matches the Cinebench pattern or the broader average.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Opteron 4334 and the AMD Opteron 4284:

• Cores: 6 (4334) versus 8 (4284)
• Threads: 6 (4334) versus 8 (4284)
• Base Clock: 3.10 GHz (4334) versus 3.00 GHz (4284)
• Boost Clock: 3.50 GHz (4334) versus 3.70 GHz (4284)
• Architecture: Piledriver (4334) versus Bulldozer (4284)
• Codename: Seoul (4334) versus Valencia (4284)
• Generation: Opteron (Seoul) (4334) versus Opteron (Valencia) (4284)
• Foundry: Not specified (4334) versus GlobalFoundries (4284)
• L1 Cache: 288 KB (4334) versus 384 KB (4284)
• L2 Cache: 6 MB (4334) versus 8 MB (4284)
• Memory Bus: Not specified (4334) versus Dual-channel (4284)
• Memory Bandwidth: Not specified (4334) versus 25.6 GB/s (4284)
• ECC Memory: false (4334) versus true (4284)
• PCIe: Not specified (4334) versus Gen 2 (4284)
• Production Status: Not specified (4334) versus End-of-life (4284)
• Release Date: 2012-12-03 (4334) versus 2011-11-13 (4284)
• Launch MSRP: Not specified (4334) versus $316 (4284)
• Part Number: OS4334WLU6KHK (4334) versus OS4284WLU8KGU (4284)
• Percentile vs All CPUs: 33 (4334) versus 32 (4284)
• Average Benchmark Score: 1155 (4334) versus 1146 (4284)

Fields that are identical include the series (Opteron 4000 series), manufacturer (AMD), TDP (95), socket (AMD Socket C32), process node (32 nm), transistor count (1,200 million), die size (315 mm²), L3 cache (8 MB shared), memory support (DDR3), integrated graphics (none), market segment (Server/Workstation), and multiplier unlocked (false). The 4284 also has an additional Cinebench R15 single-core benchmark score of 56, which the 4334 lacks.