AMD Opteron 4284 vs Intel Core i7-3612QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows a remarkably consistent pattern across all six Cinebench comparisons: the AMD Opteron 4284 wins every single test, but by margins so narrow they are almost within run-to-run noise. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 399 against 397 for the Core i7-3612QM, a 0.5% advantage. The single-core R15 result is the largest gap in the entire dataset, with the Opteron at 56 and the Intel part at 55, a 1.8% lead. That is not a performance class difference; it is a rounding error in real workloads.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Opteron 4284 posts 1665 multi-core versus 1656 for the i7-3612QM, again a 0.5% delta. Single-core R20 shows 234 against 233, a 0.4% edge. Cinebench R23 repeats the same story: 3965 multi-core for the AMD chip versus 3944 for Intel, a 0.5% delta, and 559 single-core versus 556, another 0.5% gap. Across all six head-to-head tests, the Opteron wins six and loses zero, but the average margin is only about 0.7%. The data indicates these two processors are effectively equivalent in raw compute throughput despite their completely different internal designs.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this picture. The Opteron 4284 carries an average benchmark score of 1146 and sits at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its closest competitor, the Intel Core i7-2600S, matches it exactly at 1146 with a 0% delta. The i7-3612QM averages 1129, also at the 32nd percentile, with the i5-4690T as its exact equal at 1129. The two chips land in the same performance tier, surrounded by similar mid-range desktop and mobile parts from the same era.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data gives the Opteron 4284 a clean sweep, but the margins are so small that the practical answer depends on workload rather than raw score. The Opteron's largest win is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 1.8% lead suggests a slight edge in lightly threaded tasks that rely on a single thread. That is a meaningful signal because single-core performance is often the bottleneck for older applications, and the Opteron manages to win there despite being a server part with a lower overall architecture efficiency per clock.

The multi-core tests all favor the Opteron by 0.5%, which indicates that its eight physical cores can keep pace with the i7-3612QM's four cores and eight threads. For workloads that scale well across cores, such as rendering, video encoding, or compilation, the Opteron holds a narrow but consistent advantage. The i7-3612QM, meanwhile, wins nothing in the recorded benchmarks. Its best showing is the R20 multi-core test, where it trails by only 9 points, a 0.5% deficit. The data does not show any benchmark category where the Intel chip takes the lead.

In practical terms, the i7-3612QM's advantage would have to come from outside these Cinebench tests. The database shows it has integrated graphics, the Intel HD 4000, which the Opteron lacks entirely. That makes the Intel part viable for systems without a discrete GPU, while the Opteron requires a separate graphics card. The Opteron, on the other hand, supports ECC memory, which the Intel mobile chip does not, giving it a role in reliability-sensitive server and workstation environments.

Architecture Differences

These two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies from the same era. The AMD Opteron 4284 uses the Bulldozer architecture on the Valencia codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs eight cores and eight threads across 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-3612QM uses Ivy Bridge, built on a 22 nm process at Intel, with four cores and eight threads from 1,400 million transistors on a much smaller 160 mm² die. The smaller process node and denser design give Intel a significant physical advantage in efficiency, which shows up in the thermal envelope: the Opteron is rated at 95 W TDP, while the i7-3612QM draws only 35 W.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Opteron carries 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The i7-3612QM has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Opteron's larger aggregate cache is a direct result of having twice as many physical cores. Clock speeds favor AMD as well: the Opteron runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost, compared to 2.10 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost for the Intel part. Despite the raw clock disadvantage, the i7-3612QM matches the Opteron in these benchmarks, which demonstrates the IPC advantage of Ivy Bridge over Bulldozer.

Memory support also separates the two. The Opteron uses dual-channel DDR3 with a recorded bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s and supports ECC. The i7-3612QM also uses dual-channel memory, but the database does not list a bandwidth figure, and ECC support is absent. Socket compatibility is entirely different: the Opteron uses AMD Socket C32, while the i7-3612QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). The Opteron is a server and workstation part, now end-of-life, released in November 2011. The i7-3612QM is a mobile part released in April 2012. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Opteron 4284 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. It leads by 1.8% in R15, 0.4% in R20, and 0.5% in R23.

Q: How do they compare in multi-core rendering?

A: The Opteron 4284 wins every multi-core test by 0.5%: 399 versus 397 in R15, 1665 versus 1656 in R20, and 3965 versus 3944 in R23.

Q: Does the Intel chip have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i7-3612QM includes Intel HD 4000. The Opteron 4284 has no integrated graphics, so it needs a discrete GPU.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Opteron 4284 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-3612QM does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Opteron 4284 is rated at 95 W. The Core i7-3612QM is rated at 35 W.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Opteron 4284 averages 1146, while the Core i7-3612QM averages 1129. Both sit at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: pick the AMD Opteron 4284 if you need eight physical cores, ECC memory support, and a server or workstation platform, and you are not constrained by power draw. It wins every recorded benchmark, even if the margins are narrow. The Opteron's 95 W TDP and lack of integrated graphics make it a poor fit for compact or power-sensitive builds, but in a chassis with adequate cooling and a discrete GPU, it delivers slightly better compute performance across the board.

Pick the Intel Core i7-3612QM if you need integrated graphics, a 35 W TDP, and a mobile platform. It loses every benchmark in this comparison, but the largest deficit is only 1.8%, and most tests show a 0.5% gap. For a laptop or a low-power compact system, that performance difference is negligible compared to the power savings and the convenience of Intel HD 4000. The i7-3612QM also benefits from a smaller 22 nm die and a more recent release date.

For server duties where ECC is non-negotiable, the Opteron is the only option of the two. For general desktop or mobile use where power and graphics matter more than a rounding-error performance lead, the Intel part is the practical choice. Neither processor is a clear winner on raw speed; the recorded data shows near-parity, and the decision should rest on platform features, power limits, and form factor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Opteron 4284 | Intel Core i7-3612QM |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket C32 | Intel Socket G2 (988B) |

| Architecture | Bulldozer | Ivy Bridge |

| Codename | Valencia | Ivy Bridge |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,200 million | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | 315 mm² | 160 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 8 MB | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | November 2011 | April 2012 |

| Launch MSRP | $316 | Not listed |

| Part Number | OS4284WLU8KGU | SR0MQ |