AMD Opteron 4284 vs Intel Core i7-2720QM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record presents a clear asymmetry in this comparison. The AMD Opteron 4284 wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, taking all five of the multi-core and single-core tests listed. The Intel Core i7-2720QM does not win a single recorded test against the Opteron. However, the Intel chip does appear in one additional benchmark category that the AMD part does not: Geekbench. The database shows the Core i7-2720QM scoring 1535 in Geekbench multi-core and 484 in Geekbench single-core, but no Geekbench scores exist for the Opteron 4284, so no direct comparison is possible in that test.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For any workload that relies on Cinebench performance, whether single-core or multi-core, the AMD Opteron 4284 is the stronger part. The Opteron leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core by 16%, in R20 multi-core by 16%, in R20 single-core by 15.8%, in R23 multi-core by 16%, and in R23 single-core by 16%. These are consistent margins, not isolated outliers. Every Cinebench generation in the database shows the same approximate 16% advantage for the AMD processor.

The Intel Core i7-2720QM, by contrast, has no recorded wins anywhere in the head-to-head data. Its role in this comparison is defined by the Geekbench results, which exist only for the Intel part. The database does not provide Geekbench data for the Opteron 4284, so the Intel chip's Geekbench scores stand alone. That means a user who specifically values Geekbench performance can look at the Intel part's numbers, but the database offers no way to say whether the Opteron would beat or lose in that test. The recorded data simply does not include it.

The broader percentile ranking is identical for both processors. Both sit at the 32nd percentile against all CPUs in the database. The average benchmark scores differ slightly: the Opteron 4284 averages 1146 points, while the Core i7-2720QM averages 1128 points. That 18-point difference is small relative to the Cinebench margins, but it is consistent with the direction of the head-to-head results. The Opteron's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-2600S (identical average score of 1146), the Intel Core i7-3612QE (1147, 0.1% ahead of the Opteron), the AMD Opteron 4332 HE (1144, 0.2% behind), and the Intel Core i5-4430 (1149, 0.3% ahead). The Core i7-2720QM's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-3330S (identical 1128), the Intel Core i3-1115GRE (1127, 0.1% behind), the Intel Core i7-3612QM (1129, 0.1% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-4690T (1129, 0.1% ahead). In both cases, the nearest rivals are extremely close, meaning neither part is dramatically better than its immediate peers, but the two parts themselves differ by roughly 1.6% in average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Opteron 4284 uses the Bulldozer architecture, specifically the Valencia codename, and belongs to the Opteron 4000 series. It is built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries, using 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-2720QM uses the Sandy Bridge architecture, also on a 32 nm process but at Intel's own foundry, with 1,160 million transistors on a smaller 216 mm² die. Both parts are 32 nm parts, but the die sizes differ substantially: the Opteron's die is roughly 46% larger by area, reflecting its greater core count and different design philosophy.

The core configurations diverge significantly. The Opteron 4284 has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The Core i7-2720QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, using Intel's Hyper-Threading to present 8 logical threads from 4 physical cores. This is a fundamental design difference: the Opteron relies on more physical cores, while the Intel part relies on thread-sharing for its 8-thread count. The clock speeds reflect this. The Opteron's base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Core i7's base clock is 2.20 GHz with a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The Opteron runs at a higher base frequency by 0.80 GHz and a higher boost frequency by 0.40 GHz.

Cache layouts differ as well. The Opteron 4284 has 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i7-2720QM has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 figures for the Intel part scale to about 256 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 across all four cores, which is less than the Opteron's totals. The Opteron's L3 is 8 MB, which is 2 MB more than the Intel part's 6 MB.

Memory support also differs. The Opteron 4284 supports DDR3 memory with dual-channel bus, and the database lists a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core i7-2720QM supports dual-channel memory, but the database does not list a specific memory type or bandwidth for it. ECC memory is not supported on the Intel part. The Opteron uses AMD Socket C32, while the Core i7 uses Intel BGA 1224, a soldered mobile socket. The Opteron has PCIe Gen 2 support, while the Intel part has no PCIe information listed. The Core i7 includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 3000, while the Opteron has no integrated graphics at all. The Opteron is a server and workstation part, while the Core i7 is a mobile processor. Both are end-of-life products, with the Opteron released in November 2011 and the Core i7 released earlier in January 2011.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five head-to-head Cinebench measurements, and the AMD Opteron 4284 wins all five. The margins are tightly clustered. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 399 against the Core i7's 344, a 16% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Opteron scores 1665 against 1435, again a 16% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Opteron scores 3965 against 3417, another 16% margin. The single-core tests follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 234 against 202, a 15.8% edge. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Opteron scores 559 against 482, a 16% lead.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across three different Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) and two workload types (single-core and multi-core), the Opteron's advantage stays in a narrow band between 15.8% and 16%. This suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific. The Opteron's higher clock speeds and additional physical cores contribute to a uniform advantage in this benchmark family. The single-core lead of roughly 16% is particularly telling, because single-core Cinebench tests do not benefit from extra cores. The Opteron's 3.70 GHz boost clock versus the Core i7's 3.30 GHz boost clock, a 0.40 GHz difference, likely explains much of that single-core edge.

The multi-core results show an interesting dynamic. The Opteron has twice as many physical cores (8 vs 4), but the Core i7 compensates with Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads. Despite that thread-count parity, the Opteron still leads by 16% in multi-core tests. This means the Opteron's advantage in multi-core workloads is not simply a matter of having more threads; it also reflects higher per-thread performance, as evidenced by the similar single-core margin. The recorded data does not show the Core i7 winning a single Cinebench test, so there is no countervailing data point to suggest the Intel part performs better in any Cinebench scenario.

The Geekbench results for the Core i7-2720QM (1535 multi-core, 484 single-core) are not part of the head-to-head table, because the Opteron has no Geekbench scores. The database therefore cannot say which part would win Geekbench. The Intel part's Geekbench single-core score of 484 is close to its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 482, but these are different tests and cannot be directly compared. The Opteron's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 559 is higher than the Core i7's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 482, but no Geekbench number exists for the Opteron, so no cross-application conclusion is possible.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 4284 has 8 physical cores, while the Intel Core i7-2720QM has 4 physical cores. Both parts present 8 threads to the operating system, but the Opteron does so with 8 native cores, while the Core i7 uses Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads from 4 cores.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-2720QM win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark table shows 5 wins for the AMD Opteron 4284 and 0 wins for the Intel Core i7-2720QM. The Core i7 does have Geekbench scores (1535 multi-core, 484 single-core) recorded, but the Opteron has no Geekbench scores in the database, so those are standalone results rather than wins in a comparison.

Q: How large is the Cinebench performance gap between the two?

A: The Opteron leads by 16% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core, and by 15.8% in Cinebench R20 single-core. All five recorded Cinebench tests show the Opteron ahead by roughly 16%.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Opteron 4284 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-2720QM does not. The Opteron also has a listed memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s with DDR3 support, whereas the Core i7's memory type and bandwidth are not listed in the database.

Q: Are these processors from the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 32 nm process. The Opteron uses GlobalFoundries' 32 nm process, while the Core i7 uses Intel's 32 nm process. The die sizes differ: the Opteron measures 315 mm², and the Core i7 measures 216 mm².

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Opteron 4284 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Core i7-2720QM has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The Opteron is 0.80 GHz higher at base and 0.40 GHz higher at boost.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors, based solely on the database entries:

• Cores: AMD Opteron 4284 has 8 cores; Intel Core i7-2720QM has 4 cores.
• Threads: Both have 8 threads, but the Opteron achieves this with 8 native cores, while the Core i7 uses 4 cores with Hyper-Threading.
• Base clock: Opteron 3.00 GHz; Core i7 2.20 GHz.
• Boost clock: Opteron 3.70 GHz; Core i7 3.30 GHz.
• TDP: Opteron 95 W; Core i7 45 W.
• Socket: Opteron AMD Socket C32; Core i7 Intel BGA 1224.
• Architecture: Opteron Bulldozer (Valencia); Core i7 Sandy Bridge.
• Foundry: Opteron GlobalFoundries; Core i7 Intel.
• Transistors: Opteron 1,200 million; Core i7 1,160 million.
• Die size: Opteron 315 mm²; Core i7 216 mm².
• L1 cache: Opteron 384 KB total; Core i7 64 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Opteron 8 MB total; Core i7 256 KB per core.
• L3 cache: Opteron 8 MB shared; Core i7 6 MB shared.
• Memory type: Opteron DDR3; Core i7 not listed.
• Memory bandwidth: Opteron 25.6 GB/s; Core i7 not listed.
• ECC memory: Opteron supported; Core i7 not supported.
• PCIe: Opteron Gen 2; Core i7 not listed.
• Integrated graphics: Opteron none; Core i7 Intel HD 3000.
• Market segment: Opteron Server/Workstation; Core i7 Mobile.
• Release date: Opteron November 2011; Core i7 January 2011.
• Part number: Opteron OS4284WLU8KGU; Core i7 SR00W.
• Average benchmark score: Opteron 1146; Core i7 1128.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Opteron 4284 is the faster processor in every benchmark where both parts have scores. The Opteron wins all five Cinebench tests with a consistent margin of approximately 16%, and it also has a slightly higher average benchmark score (1146 versus 1128). A user who prioritizes Cinebench performance, whether multi-core or single-core, should select the Opteron 4284 without hesitation.

The Intel Core i7-2720QM does have a legitimate role in this comparison, but it is not defined by head-to-head wins. Its Geekbench scores (1535 multi-core, 484 single-core) are the only benchmark results that exist solely for the Intel part, and the database offers no Opteron Geekbench numbers to compare against. For a user who specifically relies on Geekbench as a metric, the Core i7 provides measurable data, but the absence of an Opteron score means the database cannot confirm or deny superiority in that test. The Core i7 also has a much lower TDP (45 W versus 95 W), making it the more power-efficient part on paper, and it includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 3000), which the Opteron lacks entirely.

The market segments reinforce the intended use. The Opteron is a server and workstation part with ECC memory support, a server socket (AMD Socket C32), and PCIe Gen 2. The Core i7 is a mobile part with a soldered BGA socket, integrated graphics, and no ECC support. These are different tools for different environments. The Opteron belongs in a server chassis where raw multi-threaded throughput and memory reliability matter. The Core i7 belongs in a laptop where power draw and integrated graphics are priorities.

For a server or workstation workload that can use eight threads, the Opteron 4284 is the clear choice based on the benchmark data. Its 16% Cinebench advantage across the board, its higher clock speeds, and its larger cache pool all support that selection. For a mobile workload where integrated graphics and lower power consumption are essential, the Core i7-2720QM is the only option of the two, since the Opteron has no integrated graphics and a 95 W TDP that is unsuitable for portable systems. The percentile ranking is identical at 32nd, but the average score difference (1146 versus 1128) and the five head-to-head wins make the Opteron the faster part in this database's recorded measurements.