AMD Opteron 4284 vs AMD Opteron 6212 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Opteron 4284 wins every recorded benchmark in this matchup. The head-to-head data shows five tests, all favoring the Opteron 4284. The results are consistent: the Opteron 4284 leads by roughly 15% across every workload measured.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron 4284 scores 399 while the Opteron 6212 scores 340, a 14.8% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Opteron 4284 posts 1665 against 1418, again a 14.8% gap. The single-core results follow suit. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron 4284 scores 234 versus 199, a 15% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 3965 for the Opteron 4284 and 3377 for the Opteron 6212, another 14.8% gap. The single-core Cinebench R23 result is 559 versus 476, also 14.8% in favor of the Opteron 4284.

The consistency of these deltas is notable. Every test, whether multi-threaded or single-threaded, lands at approximately the same 14.8% to 15% margin. This suggests a fundamental clock-speed or efficiency advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. The Opteron 4284 runs a 3.00 GHz base clock with a 3.70 GHz boost, while the Opteron 6212 runs a 2.60 GHz base with a 3.20 GHz boost. The higher clocks on the Opteron 4284 translate directly into a uniform performance edge.

Average benchmark scores in the database reflect the same picture. The Opteron 6212 has an average benchmark score of 1162, while the Opteron 4284 sits at 1146. The Opteron 6212 actually holds a slight edge in the aggregate average, which may seem contradictory given the head-to-head sweep. This can happen when different benchmark suites are weighted differently or when the average includes tests beyond the Cinebench set. The recorded head-to-head data, however, is unambiguous: the Opteron 4284 wins all five direct comparisons.

Percentile rankings are close. The Opteron 6212 lands in the 33rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Opteron 4284 sits in the 32nd percentile. The difference is effectively negligible, placing both chips in the lower-middle range of the database. Neither processor is a high-end performer by modern standards, but within this pairing the Opteron 4284 is the faster part.

The nearest rivals in the database help contextualize these scores. The Opteron 6212 sits near the Intel Core i5-3450 (average score 1166, 0.4% higher), the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 (1156, 0.5% lower), the AMD Opteron 6220 (1168, 0.5% higher), and the Intel Core i5-3570S (1169, 0.6% higher). The Opteron 4284 is bracketed by the Intel Core i7-2600S (1146, identical), the Intel Core i7-3612QE (1147, 0.1% higher), the AMD Opteron 4332 HE (1144, 0.2% lower), and the Intel Core i5-4430 (1149, 0.3% higher). These rival deltas are all within 1%, meaning both Opteron chips perform in a similar band as those desktop and server parts from the same era.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Opteron 4284 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 399 versus 340, in Cinebench R20 multi-core it scores 1665 versus 1418, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 3965 versus 3377. Each result is a 14.8% lead for the Opteron 4284.

Q: Is the Opteron 6212 better in single-core performance?

A: No. The Opteron 4284 also wins the single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core it scores 234 versus 199, a 15% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 559 versus 476, a 14.8% lead. The Opteron 6212 does not win any recorded benchmark in this pairing.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the AMD Opteron 6212 and the AMD Opteron 4284 support ECC memory. Both also use DDR3 memory and PCIe Gen 2.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Opteron 6212 has an average benchmark score of 1162, while the Opteron 4284 has an average benchmark score of 1146. Despite losing every head-to-head test, the Opteron 6212 has a slightly higher average in the database.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each chip?

A: For the Opteron 6212, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-3450 (1166, 0.4% higher), AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 (1156, 0.5% lower), AMD Opteron 6220 (1168, 0.5% higher), and Intel Core i5-3570S (1169, 0.6% higher). For the Opteron 4284, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-2600S (1146, identical), Intel Core i7-3612QE (1147, 0.1% higher), AMD Opteron 4332 HE (1144, 0.2% lower), and Intel Core i5-4430 (1149, 0.3% higher).

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life parts. The Opteron 6212 and the Opteron 4284 are both marked as end-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Bulldozer architecture and fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 32 nm process node. The similarity ends there in several important ways.

The Opteron 6212 uses the Interlagos codename and belongs to the Opteron 6000 series. It has 2,400 million transistors spread across a dual-die design with a die size of 2x 315 mm². The Opteron 4284 uses the Valencia codename and belongs to the Opteron 4000 series. It is a single-die part with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The transistor count difference is substantial: the Opteron 6212 has twice the transistor count of the Opteron 4284, reflecting its dual-die layout and larger overall silicon area.

Cache configurations differ meaningfully. The Opteron 6212 has 768 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron 4284 has 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Opteron 6212's L1 is larger overall because of the two dies, but the L2 arrangement is per-module rather than a single shared pool. The Opteron 4284 presents a simpler cache hierarchy with a single shared L3.

Memory architecture is another major division. The Opteron 6212 supports quad-channel DDR3 memory with a peak bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Opteron 4284 supports dual-channel DDR3 with a peak bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. That is exactly half the bandwidth, a direct consequence of the channel count difference. Both support ECC memory, which matters for server reliability.

The sockets are incompatible. The Opteron 6212 uses AMD Socket G34, while the Opteron 4284 uses AMD Socket C32. These are different platforms with different memory controllers and different physical layouts. A system built for one cannot accept the other without a motherboard change.

Both chips have 8 cores and 8 threads, so thread count is not a differentiator. Neither has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both use PCIe Gen 2. The process node is the same, as is the foundry.

The release dates are identical: both launched on 2011-11-13. The launch MSRP differs, with the Opteron 6212 at $266 and the Opteron 4284 at $316. The part numbers also differ: OS6212WKT8GGU for the Opteron 6212 and OS4284WLU8KGU for the Opteron 4284.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields. The base clock is 2.60 GHz for the Opteron 6212 and 3.00 GHz for the Opteron 4284. The boost clock is 3.20 GHz for the Opteron 6212 and 3.70 GHz for the Opteron 4284. The Opteron 4284 runs at higher clocks in both modes.

Thermal design power differs in the opposite direction. The Opteron 6212 has a TDP of 115 watts, while the Opteron 4284 has a TDP of 95 watts. The Opteron 4284 delivers higher performance while drawing less power according to the TDP rating, a 20-watt gap in its favor.

The socket differs: G34 for the Opteron 6212, C32 for the Opteron 4284. The series differs as well, with the Opteron 6212 in the 6000 series and the Opteron 4284 in the 4000 series. The codenames are Interlagos and Valencia respectively.

Transistor count and die size are different. The Opteron 6212 has 2,400 million transistors on a 2x 315 mm² die, while the Opteron 4284 has 1,200 million transistors on a single 315 mm² die. The Opteron 6212 uses roughly twice the silicon.

Cache specifications differ. The Opteron 6212 has 768 KB L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die. The Opteron 4284 has 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3.

Memory channels and bandwidth differ: quad-channel with 51.2 GB/s for the Opteron 6212, dual-channel with 25.6 GB/s for the Opteron 4284. Both use DDR3 and support ECC.

The launch MSRP is $266 for the Opteron 6212 and $316 for the Opteron 4284. Both are end-of-life and both launched on the same date.

Where Each One Wins

The Opteron 4284 wins in raw compute performance across every benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. If the workload is Cinebench-style rendering, the Opteron 4284 is the stronger part by a consistent 14.8% to 15% margin. This applies to both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks. The higher base and boost clocks (3.00 GHz and 3.70 GHz versus 2.60 GHz and 3.20 GHz) give it a clear advantage in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded scenarios.

The Opteron 4284 also wins on efficiency. Its TDP is 95 watts versus 115 watts for the Opteron 6212, so it delivers more performance while consuming less power at the rating level. For dense server deployments where thermal and power budgets are tight, this is a meaningful advantage.

The Opteron 6212 wins on memory bandwidth. Its quad-channel memory controller provides 51.2 GB/s, exactly double the 25.6 GB/s of the Opteron 4284. Applications that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, such as certain database workloads or large data shuffles, could see benefits from the Opteron 6212 despite its lower compute scores.

The Opteron 6212 also has a higher transistor count and a dual-die design, which gives it a larger L1 cache (768 KB versus 384 KB). The per-module L2 arrangement may behave differently under certain access patterns, but the recorded benchmarks do not show a scenario where this translates into a win.

The average benchmark score slightly favors the Opteron 6212 (1162 versus 1146), though the margin is small and not reflected in any direct head-to-head test. The Opteron 6212 also sits slightly higher in the percentile ranking (33rd versus 32nd), again a marginal difference.

The Opteron 6212 is the better fit for systems that need maximum memory throughput and can tolerate a higher TDP. The Opteron 4284 is the better fit for general compute performance, especially where power efficiency matters.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Opteron 4284 is the faster processor in this pairing. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks with a consistent 14.8% to 15% margin. It achieves this while running at a lower TDP (95 watts versus 115 watts), making it the more efficient choice as well. The higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz give it a straightforward performance edge over the Opteron 6212's 2.60 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost.

The Opteron 6212 is not without merit. Its quad-channel memory controller delivers 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, twice the 25.6 GB/s of the Opteron 4284. For workloads that are heavily memory-bound, that could offset the compute deficit. Its larger transistor count and dual-die layout also give it a bigger L1 cache. The average benchmark score is marginally higher (1162 versus 1146), and it sits one percentile point higher in the database ranking.

However, none of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks show the Opteron 6212 winning in any compute scenario. The Cinebench suite, which stresses both single-core and multi-core throughput, favors the Opteron 4284 across the board. The 14.8% gap in multi-core tests and the 14.8% to 15% gap in single-core tests are consistent and repeatable.

For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life server processors, the decision depends on the workload. If the priority is compute performance, lower power draw, and a simpler single-die platform, the Opteron 4284 is the obvious pick. It outperforms the Opteron 6212 in every measured test and does so with a lower TDP. If the priority is memory bandwidth for bandwidth-sensitive applications, the Opteron 6212 offers double the channel count and double the peak bandwidth, but the database shows no benchmark where that translates into a victory.

The Opteron 4284 also has a higher launch MSRP ($316 versus $266), which is consistent with its higher performance profile. Both chips occupy the same general performance tier according to their nearest rivals, with the Opteron 6212 sitting near the Intel Core i5-3450 and the Opteron 4284 matching the Intel Core i7-2600S. Neither part is competitive with modern processors, but within this specific comparison, the Opteron 4284 is the better engineering outcome: more performance, less power, and a cleaner architecture. The Opteron 6212 remains relevant only for systems that specifically need its quad-channel memory interface.