AMD Opteron 4376 HE vs AMD PRO A10-8770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data delivers a clear, unambiguous outcome: the AMD Opteron 4376 HE wins every single benchmark in this comparison, with a consistent advantage of roughly 20% across all tested workloads. The AMD PRO A10-8770 does not claim a single victory in any of the five recorded Cinebench tests.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Opteron 4376 HE scores 369 points against 306 for the PRO A10-8770, a margin of 20.6%. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Opteron posts 1541 points versus 1276, a 20.8% lead. The R23 multicore test shows the Opteron at 3670 points compared to 3040, a 20.7% advantage. These multicore results are remarkably consistent, with the spread between the smallest and largest delta at just 0.2 percentage points.

The single-core tests tell the same story, though with slightly different margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Opteron scores 217 against 180, a 20.6% lead. In R23 single-core, the Opteron reaches 518 points while the PRO A10-8770 manages 429, a 20.7% difference. Note that the Opteron’s single-core advantage is proportionally identical to its multicore advantage, which suggests the performance gap is not merely a core-count effect but reflects a fundamental per-thread efficiency difference.

It is worth examining what these scores mean in the broader context of the database. The Opteron 4376 HE holds an average benchmark score of 1061, placing it at the 29th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-4360, matches that 1061 average exactly with a delta of 0%. The Intel Core i5-4570TE sits at 1062, a 0.1% difference, while the AMD FX-8320E scores 1059, a 0.2% gap. The Intel Core i5-2380P reaches 1063, again a 0.2% difference. These rivals are tightly clustered, indicating that the Opteron operates in a competitive performance band.

The PRO A10-8770, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 1046, also at the 29th percentile. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-6350HQ, matches that score exactly. The AMD Athlon X4 950 comes in at 1047, a 0.1% difference, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 and Intel Pentium Gold G5620 both sit at 1045, each a 0.1% gap. The two CPUs occupy the same percentile ranking, yet the Opteron’s average score is 15 points higher (1061 versus 1046), which corresponds to roughly a 1.4% advantage in the aggregate metric.

The head-to-head deltas, however, are far larger than that aggregate gap suggests. Across the five Cinebench tests, the Opteron leads by no less than 20.6% and no more than 20.8%. This is a strikingly uniform margin, which implies that the performance difference is consistent across both lightly threaded and heavily threaded workloads. The single-core tests show the same 20.6% to 20.7% advantage, meaning the Opteron is not just winning because it has twice the cores, it is also winning on a per-thread basis.

The PRO A10-8770 does have a higher base clock (3.50 GHz versus 2.60 GHz) and a higher boost clock (3.80 GHz versus 3.60 GHz), yet it still trails in every test. This indicates that raw clock speed alone does not determine Cinebench performance, and the Opteron’s architectural advantages in cache capacity and core count outweigh the clock frequency deficit.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Opteron 4376 HE is the superior processor for Cinebench workloads, outperforming the AMD PRO A10-8770 by approximately 20% across both single-core and multicore tests. Any user whose primary concern is raw rendering or compute performance in Cinebench should choose the Opteron without hesitation.

The Opteron’s victory is comprehensive. It wins all five recorded benchmarks, with no exceptions. The margin is consistent, ranging from 20.6% to 20.8%, which suggests a structural performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Opteron’s 8 cores versus 4 cores, combined with its larger L2 cache (8 MB versus 2 MB) and its presence of an L3 cache (8 MB shared, which the PRO A10-8770 lacks entirely), explains the multicore dominance. The single-core advantage, however, is less obvious from the specifications alone, yet the data shows a 20.6% to 20.7% lead in those tests as well.

The PRO A10-8770 is not without merits, but those merits do not appear in the Cinebench results. It supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, whereas the Opteron supports only DDR3. It also includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which the Opteron lacks entirely. For a system that requires an integrated GPU and modern memory technology, the PRO A10-8770 has a functional advantage that the benchmark scores do not capture. However, within the scope of the measured data, which is exclusively Cinebench, the Opteron is the clear winner.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this verdict. The Opteron’s 1061 average versus the PRO A10-8770’s 1046 places the Opteron ahead in the database’s aggregate metric. Both CPUs sit at the 29th percentile, but the Opteron’s raw score is higher. The nearest rival analysis shows the Opteron trading blows with Intel Core i3 and i5 parts from the same era, while the PRO A10-8770 aligns with Intel Core i5 mobile parts and AMD Athlon X4 desktop chips.

For a server or workstation workload that relies on multi-threaded rendering, the Opteron 4376 HE is the only reasonable choice from these two. For a desktop system where integrated graphics and DDR4 support are mandatory, the PRO A10-8770 offers those features, but it will deliver roughly 20% lower Cinebench performance in every scenario measured.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD lineages and target different market segments, which explains their divergent specifications and performance profiles.

The Opteron 4376 HE belongs to the Opteron 4000 series, built on the Piledriver architecture with the codename Seoul. It is fabricated on a 32 nm process node and contains 1,200 million transistors on a die size of 315 mm². This is a server and workstation part, designed for AMD Socket C32. Its cache hierarchy includes 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache is a significant differentiator, as it provides a shared pool of fast memory for all eight cores.

The PRO A10-8770, in contrast, uses the Excavator architecture with the codename Carrizo, fabricated on a 28 nm process node by GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a smaller 250 mm² die. This is a desktop part for AMD Socket AM4. Its cache is far more modest: 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The lack of L3 cache is a notable architectural gap, as it means the PRO A10-8770 cannot benefit from the shared cache pool that the Opteron provides.

The transistor counts are revealing. The PRO A10-8770 has 3,100 million transistors, more than double the Opteron’s 1,200 million, yet it delivers lower Cinebench scores. This is partly due to the integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which consume a substantial portion of the die, and partly due to the smaller cache hierarchy. The Opteron’s larger L2 and L3 caches allow it to feed its eight cores more effectively, even though it has fewer transistors overall.

The memory support differs as well. The Opteron uses DDR3, while the PRO A10-8770 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The PRO A10-8770 also supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Opteron has no recorded PCIe specification. The PRO A10-8770 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which the Opteron does not offer. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The release dates are also distinct, though only the Opteron has a recorded date: December 3, 2012. The PRO A10-8770 has no recorded release date in the database. The Opteron’s production status is not recorded, while the PRO A10-8770 is listed as active. The Opteron uses part number OS4376OFU8KHK, while the PRO A10-8770 uses AD877BAGM44AB.

The core and thread counts are the most straightforward difference: the Opteron has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the PRO A10-8770 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Opteron’s base clock is 2.60 GHz and boost clock is 3.60 GHz, while the PRO A10-8770’s base clock is 3.50 GHz and boost clock is 3.80 GHz. Despite the higher clocks on the PRO A10-8770, the Opteron’s core count and cache advantages dominate in Cinebench.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 4376 HE has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD PRO A10-8770 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the PRO A10-8770 have an L3 cache?

A: No. The PRO A10-8770 has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 cache, but no L3 cache. The Opteron 4376 HE has 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The AMD Opteron 4376 HE has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Opteron leads by 20.8%. The smallest margin is 20.6%, seen in Cinebench R15 multicore and Cinebench R20 single-core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Neither the AMD Opteron 4376 HE nor the AMD PRO A10-8770 supports ECC memory according to the recorded data.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the AMD Opteron 4376 HE has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The AMD Opteron 4376 HE supports DDR3 memory. The AMD PRO A10-8770 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 4376 HE wins in every recorded Cinebench benchmark. This is the complete list of its victories: Cinebench R15 multicore (369 versus 306), Cinebench R20 multicore (1541 versus 1276), Cinebench R20 single-core (217 versus 180), Cinebench R23 multicore (3670 versus 3040), and Cinebench R23 single-core (518 versus 429). The margin is consistently between 20.6% and 20.8%. The Opteron also holds a higher average benchmark score at 1061 versus 1046.

The AMD PRO A10-8770 does not win any of the five head-to-head benchmarks. Its wins are not recorded in the Cinebench suite. However, it does have advantages in certain specification areas. It supports DDR4 memory rather than DDR3, which offers a higher recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. It includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which is a feature the Opteron entirely lacks. It also supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Opteron has no recorded PCIe support. The PRO A10-8770 is listed as active in production, while the Opteron’s production status is not recorded.

For use cases that depend solely on Cinebench scores, the Opteron is the only choice. For use cases that require an integrated GPU, a modern DDR4 interface, or a smaller die size with more transistors (which may indicate additional features), the PRO A10-8770 offers those capabilities. The PRO A10-8770’s socket is AM4, which is a modern desktop platform, while the Opteron uses the server-oriented Socket C32.

The average benchmark score comparison also favors the Opteron. At 1061, it sits 15 points higher than the PRO A10-8770’s 1046. Both are at the 29th percentile, but the Opteron’s nearest rivals include Intel Core i3-4360 (1061, 0% delta), Intel Core i5-4570TE (1062, 0.1% delta), AMD FX-8320E (1059, 0.2% delta), and Intel Core i5-2380P (1063, 0.2% delta). The PRO A10-8770’s nearest rivals are Intel Core i5-6350HQ (1046, 0% delta), AMD Athlon X4 950 (1047, 0.1% delta), AMD PRO A10-9700 (1045, 0.1% delta), and Intel Pentium Gold G5620 (1045, 0.1% delta). The Opteron’s rival set includes slightly higher-scoring parts, which further confirms its edge.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The Opteron 4376 HE has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the PRO A10-8770 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Opteron’s base clock is 2.60 GHz versus 3.50 GHz for the PRO A10-8770. The boost clock is 3.60 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. Both have a TDP of 65 watts, which is the only major specification they share.

The socket differs: the Opteron uses AMD Socket C32, while the PRO A10-8770 uses AMD Socket AM4. The architecture differs: the Opteron is Piledriver, while the PRO A10-8770 is Excavator. The codenames are Seoul and Carrizo, respectively. The process node is 32 nm for the Opteron and 28 nm for the PRO A10-8770. The foundry is not recorded for the Opteron, but the PRO A10-8770 is fabricated by GlobalFoundries.

The transistor count differs significantly: 1,200 million for the Opteron versus 3,100 million for the PRO A10-8770. The die size is 315 mm² for the Opteron versus 250 mm² for the PRO A10-8770. The cache configurations are completely different: the Opteron has 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3; the PRO A10-8770 has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache.

Memory support differs: the Opteron uses DDR3, while the PRO A10-8770 uses DDR4. The PRO A10-8770 has a recorded dual-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Opteron has no recorded memory bus or bandwidth figures. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe support is recorded only for the PRO A10-8770, which lists Gen 3, while the Opteron has no PCIe data.

Integrated graphics differ: the PRO A10-8770 includes Radeon R7, while the Opteron has none. The market segment differs: the Opteron is Server/Workstation, while the PRO A10-8770 is Desktop. The production status is not recorded for the Opteron, but the PRO A10-8770 is active. The release date is recorded only for the Opteron (December 3, 2012), with no date for the PRO A10-8770. Neither has a launch MSRP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are OS4376OFU8KHK for the Opteron and AD877BAGM44AB for the PRO A10-8770.