CPU Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6212 and AMD Opteron 4334 are two server processors from different generations and sockets, yet their benchmark results are remarkably close. The data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Opteron 6212 across every tested workload, with the Opteron 4334 offering a lower TDP and a different architectural foundation. This analysis breaks down the numbers to determine which chip fits which server role.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unusually lopsided in terms of wins, with the Opteron 6212 taking all five benchmark comparisons. However, the margins are razor-thin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron 6212 scores 340 against the Opteron 4334's 338, a delta of just 0.6%. The same 0.6% margin appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where 1418 beats 1409. This pattern suggests that the two processors deliver nearly identical throughput in heavily threaded rendering tasks, despite their different core counts and clock speeds.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron 6212 posts 199 versus 198 for the Opteron 4334, a 0.5% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 476 against 473, again a 0.6% edge for the Opteron 6212. The largest absolute gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where 3377 surpasses 3356, but even that translates to only 21 points. For practical purposes, these chips are performance twins in the Cinebench suite, with the Opteron 6212 holding a marginal but consistent lead.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Opteron 6212 sits at 1162, while the Opteron 4334 is at 1155. That 7-point gap places the Opteron 6212 with an average score delta of -0.4% against the Intel Core i5-3450 (1166) and -0.5% against the AMD Opteron 6220 (1168). The Opteron 4334, meanwhile, shows a -0.1% delta against the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 (1156) and a +0.5% delta against the Intel Core i5-4430 (1149). Notably, the two processors appear in each other's nearest rivals list, with the Opteron 6212 showing a -0.6% delta against the Opteron 4334, confirming their near-identical standing in the overall benchmark hierarchy.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is where these two diverge meaningfully. The Opteron 6212 is built on the Bulldozer architecture, codenamed Interlagos, and belongs to the Opteron 6000 series. It uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries and packs 2,400 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 315 mm². The Opteron 4334, by contrast, uses the newer Piledriver architecture, codenamed Seoul, from the Opteron 4000 series. It also uses a 32 nm process but contains only 1,200 million transistors on a single 315 mm² die.

Core and cache configurations differ substantially. The Opteron 6212 has 8 cores and 8 threads, with 768 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron 4334 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with 288 KB of L1, 6 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. Despite having fewer cores, the Opteron 4334 compensates with higher clock speeds: 3.10 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, versus 2.60 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost on the Opteron 6212. This clock advantage explains how the 6-core Piledriver part keeps pace with the 8-core Bulldozer part in threaded workloads.

Memory support also differs. The Opteron 6212 uses DDR3 with a quad-channel memory bus and a rated bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The Opteron 4334 also supports DDR3 but has no listed memory bus or bandwidth figures, and its ECC support is not indicated. The Opteron 6212 requires the AMD Socket G34, while the Opteron 4334 uses the AMD Socket C32. Both are locked multipliers, and neither has integrated graphics. Power draw is another differentiator: the Opteron 6212 has a TDP of 115 W, while the Opteron 4334 is rated at 95 W.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark data, the Opteron 6212 wins every tested workload. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core, it posts higher scores than the Opteron 4334. The margins are small, ranging from 0.5% to 0.6%, but they are consistent across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. For applications that rely heavily on Cinebench-style rendering, the Opteron 6212 is the safer pick for maximizing raw score, even if the practical difference is likely imperceptible.

The Opteron 4334's advantage is not in benchmark scores but in platform characteristics. It has a lower TDP of 95 W versus 115 W, which can translate to lower cooling requirements and potentially more dense server deployments. It also uses the Socket C32 platform, which is distinct from the G34 socket of the Opteron 6212, meaning motherboard choice will be a deciding factor. The Opteron 4334's higher base and boost clocks (3.10 GHz and 3.50 GHz) suggest it may feel more responsive in lightly threaded or bursty workloads, though the Cinebench single-core scores do not show a win for it. The data does not include any memory bandwidth or PCIe figures for the Opteron 4334, so its capabilities in those areas remain unquantified here.

The Opteron 6212 counters with a higher core count (8 versus 6), larger L1 cache (768 KB versus 288 KB), and a higher memory bandwidth rating (51.2 GB/s versus none listed). It also explicitly supports ECC memory, which is a critical feature for error-sensitive server workloads; the Opteron 4334's ECC support is not listed. For workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, the Opteron 6212 has the structural advantage, even if the benchmark results show only a small lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 6212 has an average benchmark score of 1162, while the AMD Opteron 4334 scores 1155.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Opteron 6212 scores 3377, and the Opteron 4334 scores 3356, giving the Opteron 6212 a 0.6% lead.

Q: Does the Opteron 4334 have more cores than the Opteron 6212?

A: No. The Opteron 6212 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Opteron 4334 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each processor?

A: The Opteron 6212 boosts to 3.20 GHz, and the Opteron 4334 boosts to 3.50 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: The Opteron 6212 lists ECC memory support as true. The Opteron 4334 does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Opteron 4334 has a TDP of 95 W, compared to 115 W for the Opteron 6212.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner for raw performance: the AMD Opteron 6212. It wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, holds a higher average benchmark score (1162 versus 1155), and offers more cores, more L1 cache, and a higher rated memory bandwidth. If your workload is dominated by multi-threaded rendering or compute tasks that mirror the Cinebench suite, the Opteron 6212 is the processor to choose. Its 8 cores and quad-channel memory support give it a structural edge that the benchmark numbers confirm, even if the deltas are small.

The Opteron 4334 is not without merit, but its case rests on platform and efficiency rather than benchmark victories. Its 95 W TDP is 20 W lower than the Opteron 6212's 115 W, which can simplify cooling in dense server chassis. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.10 GHz and 3.50 GHz versus 2.60 GHz and 3.20 GHz) are notable, though they do not translate to wins in the single-core benchmarks. For users already invested in the Socket C32 platform, the Opteron 4334 is a capable choice that delivers nearly identical Cinebench performance to the Opteron 6212. However, for a new deployment where the socket is not a constraint, the Opteron 6212's consistent benchmark lead and larger core count make it the more attractive option. The Opteron 4334 is the pick for power-conscious builds; the Opteron 6212 is the pick for performance, however marginal the measured difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Opteron 6212 | AMD Opteron 4334 |

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

| Series | Opteron 6000 series | Opteron 4000 series |

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 115 W | 95 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket G34 | AMD Socket C32 |

| Architecture | Bulldozer | Piledriver |

| Codename | Interlagos | Seoul |

| Transistors | 2,400 million | 1,200 million |

| Die Size | 2x 315 mm² | 315 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 288 KB |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per module) | 6 MB |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (per die) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Not listed |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | Not listed |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2011-11-13 | 2012-12-03 |

| Part Number | OS6212WKT8GGU | OS4334WLU6KHK |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 1162 | 1155 |

| Percentile | 33 | 33 |