AMD Opteron 4284 vs Intel Core i3-7320 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record is unusually one-sided in this pairing. Across all six Cinebench tests recorded in the database, the Intel Core i3-7320 takes the win every time. There is no test in the head-to-head set where the AMD Opteron 4284 comes out ahead, so the use-case split is not about which processor wins a given workload category, but rather about how close the margins are and what each chip's underlying design does for different task types.

The i3-7320's wins are consistent but narrow. In multi-core tests, it leads by 2.3% in Cinebench R15 (408 vs 399), by 2.3% in R20 (1703 vs 1665), and by 2.3% in R23 (4057 vs 3965). Those are not dominant margins, but they are uniform. The single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Intel part ahead by 1.8% in R15 (57 vs 56), 2.6% in R20 (240 vs 234), and 2.3% in R23 (572 vs 559). The fact that the i3-7320 wins both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests means it does not need a workload that favors its architecture; it simply performs better across the board, even though the Opteron has four times the physical cores.

For a builder deciding based on raw throughput, the practical takeaway is that the i3-7320 is the safer pick for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, which tend to scale with both core count and per-core efficiency. The Opteron's 8 cores do not translate into a multi-core advantage here, which suggests the Bulldozer design's per-module throughput is not competitive with Kaby Lake's per-core efficiency in this benchmark suite. The Opteron 4284 does offer ECC memory support, which the i3-7320 lacks, so for server or workstation environments where data integrity features matter more than raw Cinebench scores, the AMD part still has a functional niche. But if the question is purely about benchmark performance, the i3-7320 wins every recorded test, and the Opteron's only claim is that it stays within striking distance despite being an older, higher-TDP server part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The Intel Core i3-7320 is a Kaby Lake desktop part built on Intel's 14 nm process, with 2 cores and 4 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading. Its base clock is 4.10 GHz with no boost clock listed, and it has a TDP of 51 W. The cache layout is 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. It supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, runs on Intel Socket 1151, and includes integrated Intel HD 630 graphics. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory is not supported.

The AMD Opteron 4284 is a Valencia part from the Bulldozer generation, built on GlobalFoundries' 32 nm process. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The TDP is 95 W, nearly double the Intel part. Cache totals are larger in absolute terms: 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. It uses DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, which is about two-thirds of the Intel chip's memory bandwidth. The socket is AMD Socket C32, aimed at server and workstation platforms. It has no integrated graphics, supports ECC memory, and uses PCIe Gen 2. The production status is end-of-life, while the i3-7320 is listed as active.

The transistor count and die size for the Opteron are recorded at 1,200 million transistors and 315 mm², while the i3-7320 has no figures listed for either. The process node difference alone, 14 nm versus 32 nm, explains much of the efficiency gap. The i3-7320 delivers competitive or better performance at 51 W, while the Opteron needs 95 W to stay within a few percent in most tests. The architectural gap between Kaby Lake's high-IPC cores and Bulldozer's module-based design is the core story here, and the benchmark data reflects that clearly.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 wins every single-core test in the database. It leads by 1.8% in Cinebench R15 (57 vs 56), by 2.6% in R20 (240 vs 234), and by 2.3% in R23 (572 vs 559).

Q: Does the Opteron's 8-core count give it a multi-core advantage?

A: No. Despite having 8 cores versus the i3-7320's 2 cores and 4 threads, the Opteron 4284 loses all three multi-core Cinebench tests. The i3-7320 leads by 2.3% in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Opteron 4284 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i3-7320 does not, which is a meaningful difference for server or workstation use cases where memory error correction is required.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 has a TDP of 51 W, while the AMD Opteron 4284 has a TDP of 95 W. The Intel part achieves higher benchmark scores while drawing less power according to the recorded specifications.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 has a base clock of 4.10 GHz with no boost clock listed. The AMD Opteron 4284 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 is listed as active. The AMD Opteron 4284 is end-of-life, so it is no longer in active production.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two processors diverge on nearly every major field. The Intel Core i3-7320 uses 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Opteron 4284 uses 8 cores and 8 threads. The i3-7320 has a base clock of 4.10 GHz and no boost clock, while the Opteron starts at 3.00 GHz and boosts to 3.70 GHz. TDP is 51 W for Intel and 95 W for AMD.

The manufacturing process is 14 nm for the i3-7320 and 32 nm for the Opteron. The Intel part is built by Intel, the AMD part by GlobalFoundries. The Opteron has recorded transistor and die size figures of 1,200 million transistors and 315 mm², while the i3-7320 has none listed.

Cache configurations differ sharply in total size but not in per-core philosophy. The i3-7320 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. The Opteron has 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 for the Intel part and DDR3 for the AMD part, with memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

The i3-7320 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU and includes Intel HD 630 integrated graphics. The Opteron uses PCIe Gen 2 and has no integrated graphics. ECC memory is supported only on the Opteron. The sockets are different, Intel Socket 1151 versus AMD Socket C32. The market segments also differ, with the i3-7320 listed as Desktop and the Opteron as Server/Workstation.

Release dates are far apart. The i3-7320 was released in 2017-01-02, while the Opteron 4284 came out in 2011-11-13. The production status is Active for Intel and End-of-life for AMD. The Opteron has a recorded launch MSRP of $316, which can be stated once, while the i3-7320 has no launch MSRP listed. The part numbers are SR358 for Intel and OS4284WLU8KGU for AMD. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six recorded Cinebench comparisons all go the same direction, but the margins tell a nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-7320 scores 408 against the Opteron's 399, a 2.3% lead. That result is notable because the Opteron has 8 physical cores, yet cannot convert that core count into a win. The single-core R15 result is closer, 57 to 56, a 1.8% edge for Intel, which shows that even in a test that should favor high clocks and strong per-core performance, the older AMD part does not fall far behind.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core shows the i3-7320 at 1703 and the Opteron at 1665, again a 2.3% lead. Single-core shows 240 versus 234, a 2.6% lead, the largest single margin in the entire comparison. The fact that the biggest gap appears in a single-threaded test is telling, since the i3-7320's 4.10 GHz base clock and Kaby Lake architecture should dominate there, and indeed it does, even if the raw delta is small.

In Cinebench R23, the multi-core scores are 4057 for Intel and 3965 for AMD, a 2.3% lead. Single-core is 572 versus 559, also 2.3%. The consistency across all three Cinebench versions is remarkable: the i3-7320 never leads by more than 2.6% or less than 1.8%. That consistency suggests the performance gap is structural, tied to architectural efficiency rather than workload-specific scaling.

Looking at the broader database context, the i3-7320 has an average benchmark score of 1173 and sits at the 33rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3635QM at 1170 (0.3% behind), the Intel Core i7-2960XM at 1169 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core i5-3570S at 1169 (0.4% behind). The Opteron 4284 has an average score of 1146 and sits at the 32nd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-2600S at 1146 (0% difference), the Intel Core i7-3612QE at 1147 (0.1% ahead), and the AMD Opteron 4332 HE at 1144 (0.2% behind). The two chips are close in percentile ranking, just one point apart, but the i3-7320 holds the edge in every direct comparison.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for most buyers. The Intel Core i3-7320 wins all six recorded benchmarks, holds a higher average score (1173 versus 1146), ranks one percentile higher (33rd versus 32nd), uses less power (51 W versus 95 W), and is built on a much newer process (14 nm versus 32 nm). For desktop users running Cinebench-style workloads, the i3-7320 is the better choice, and its active production status means it is still a viable option for new builds.

The AMD Opteron 4284 is not without reasons to exist. It supports ECC memory, which the i3-7320 does not, and it is classified as a Server/Workstation part, so it targets a different platform segment. Its 8 cores and 8 threads may be attractive for server environments that need many threads for non-benchmark workloads, even if Cinebench does not show an advantage. The Opteron also has a recorded launch MSRP of $316, while the i3-7320 has no launch MSRP listed.

But on raw performance, the Opteron loses every test by a small margin. The i3-7320's per-core efficiency, higher clock speed, and newer architecture overcome the Opteron's core-count advantage. For a builder who prioritizes benchmark scores, power efficiency, and an active production part, the i3-7320 is the pick. For a server workload that requires ECC memory and can tolerate a higher TDP and end-of-life status, the Opteron 4284 has a specific, narrow role. The benchmark record, however, belongs entirely to Intel.