AMD Opteron 4386 vs Intel Celeron N5100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data presents an unusually tight contest between two processors from entirely different eras and market segments. Across all five Cinebench tests, the Intel Celeron N5100 wins every round, but the margins are remarkably small. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Celeron scores 282 against the Opteron 4386's 280, a delta of just 0.7%. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Celeron's 1179 edges out the Opteron's 1168 by 0.9%. Single-core results tell the same story: the Celeron N5100 posts 166 in R20 single-core against the Opteron's 164, a 1.2% advantage, while both R23 single-core scores land at 396 for the Intel part and 392 for the AMD part, a 1% difference.

Multi-core Cinebench R23 is the closest overall race in the dataset, with the Celeron's 2809 narrowly ahead of the Opteron's 2782, a 1% delta. These are not decisive victories in any test. The largest margin anywhere is the 1.2% in Cinebench R20 single-core, still a negligible gap in practical terms. The database places both chips at the 26th percentile against all CPUs. Average benchmark scores are nearly identical as well: the Celeron N5100 sits at 966, while the Opteron 4386 sits at 957.

Context from the nearest-rivals lists reinforces how close these two are. The Celeron N5100's average score of 966 places it within 0.3% of the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T (963) and within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U (968) and Intel Core i5-2400S (968). It is also 0.1% behind the Intel Xeon X5570 (967). The Opteron 4386's average of 957 matches the Intel Core i7-950 (957) exactly, sits 0.1% above the AMD Athlon X4 870K (956) and Intel Xeon W3550 (956), and trails the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 (958) by 0.1%. Both processors occupy the same performance neighborhood, and the head-to-head deltas confirm that the Celeron N5100's wins, while consistent, are barely measurable.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The Intel Celeron N5100 is built on the Tremont architecture, part of the Jasper Lake codename family, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel with a die size of 63.8 mm². It is a mobile-market part with 4 cores and 4 threads, a base clock of 1100.00 MHz, and a boost clock of 2.80 GHz. Its thermal design power is 6 watts, reflecting its efficiency-focused mobile positioning. The Celeron uses an Intel BGA 1338 socket and includes integrated UHD Graphics 24EU, meaning no separate graphics card is required for display output.

The AMD Opteron 4386 belongs to the Opteron 4000 series, codenamed Seoul, and uses the Piledriver architecture. It is a server/workstation part built on a 32 nm process with 1,200 million transistors and a die size of 315 mm², roughly five times the Celeron's die area. The Opteron provides 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its TDP is 95 watts, a figure over fifteen times higher than the Celeron's, and it uses the AMD Socket C32. The Opteron has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for any display output. Its release date in the database is 2012-12-03, making it a much older design, now in the end-of-life status. The Celeron N5100 is marked as end-of-life as well, but it belongs to a newer generation and process node.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Celeron N5100 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron 4386 has 384 KB of L1 cache total across all cores, 8 MB of L2 cache total, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron's L3 cache alone is double the size of the Celeron's entire L3 allocation, and its total L2 is over five times larger. Memory support also diverges: the Celeron uses DDR4 and LPDDR4 in dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s, while the Opteron uses DDR3 and the database lists no memory bus width or bandwidth figure for it. Neither chip supports ECC memory according to the records.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests in the database?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 wins all 5 head-to-head benchmark tests against the AMD Opteron 4386. The Opteron does not win any of the recorded comparisons.

Q: How large is the Celeron N5100's performance advantage in multicore workloads?

A: In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Celeron scores 282 versus the Opteron's 280, a delta of 0.7%. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Celeron scores 1179 versus 1168, a delta of 0.9%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Celeron scores 2809 versus 2782, a delta of 1%. All margins are under 1.2%.

Q: Do the two processors have similar average performance across all benchmarks?

A: Yes. The Celeron N5100 has an average benchmark score of 966, while the Opteron 4386 has an average score of 957. Both sit at the 26th percentile against all CPUs in the database.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD Opteron 4386 has 8 cores and 8 threads, double the core and thread count of the Celeron.

Q: How do the thermal design power ratings compare?

A: The Celeron N5100 has a TDP of 6 watts, while the Opteron 4386 has a TDP of 95 watts. The Opteron draws substantially more power according to the recorded specifications, over fifteen times the Celeron's rating.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 includes UHD Graphics 24EU. The AMD Opteron 4386 does not include any integrated graphics, so it requires a separate graphics adapter.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Celeron N5100 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 in dual-channel mode. The Opteron 4386 supports DDR3. The database does not list a memory bus or bandwidth figure for the Opteron.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ in the database.

| Field | Intel Celeron N5100 | AMD Opteron 4386 |

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

| Series | null | Opteron 4000 series |

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1100.00 MHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 6 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1338 | AMD Socket C32 |

| Architecture | Tremont | Piledriver |

| Codename | Jasper Lake | Seoul |

| Generation | Celeron (Tremont) | Opteron (Seoul) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | null | 1,200 million |

| Die Size | 63.8 mm² | 315 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB (shared) | 8 MB |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, LPDDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | null |

| Memory Bandwidth | 46.9 GB/s | null |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | null |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 24EU | null |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | End-of-life | null |

| Release Date | null | 2012-12-03 |

| Part Number | SRKGZ | OS4386WLU8KHK |

| Average Benchmark Score | 966 | 957 |

Both processors have equal values for ECC memory support (false), multiplier unlock status (false), and launch MSRP (null in both cases). Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither allows multiplier unlocking.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Celeron N5100 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins are so small that the wins are more symbolic than substantial. In single-core Cinebench R20, the Celeron's 166 versus the Opteron's 164 represents its largest edge at 1.2%. In multi-core Cinebench R23, the Celeron's 2809 versus the Opteron's 2782 gives it a 1% lead. These results suggest the Celeron holds a slight overall efficiency and per-clock advantage, likely tied to its newer 10 nm Tremont architecture and higher memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.

However, the Opteron 4386 offers structural advantages that the benchmark scores alone do not capture. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, twice the Celeron's 4-core, 4-thread configuration. It also carries a much larger cache pool: 8 MB of L2 and 8 MB of shared L3, versus the Celeron's 1.5 MB L2 and 4 MB L3. The Opteron's base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost of 3.80 GHz are significantly higher than the Celeron's 1100.00 MHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. These specifications point to a chip designed for sustained server and workstation workloads, even if the recorded Cinebench results do not show a corresponding performance lead.

The Celeron N5100 wins on platform simplicity. It integrates UHD Graphics 24EU, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU. It supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory with dual-channel access and a listed bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. Its 6-watt TDP makes it suitable for low-power mobile designs, while the Opteron's 95-watt TDP demands a more robust cooling solution and power delivery. The Celeron also uses a newer 10 nm process compared to the Opteron's 32 nm, and its die size of 63.8 mm² is far smaller than the Opteron's 315 mm².

In terms of recorded benchmark performance, the Celeron N5100 wins all five comparisons. But the Opteron 4386 remains competitive in every test despite its older architecture and higher power envelope, losing by no more than 1.2% in any single test. For workloads that rely on raw core count, cache capacity, or high sustained clock speeds, the Opteron's specifications suggest it would be the better fit, even though the database's Cinebench results do not demonstrate a victory for it.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Celeron N5100 is the winner of every benchmark comparison against the AMD Opteron 4386. It posts higher scores in Cinebench R15 multicore (282 to 280), R20 multicore (1179 to 1168), R20 single-core (166 to 164), R23 multicore (2809 to 2782), and R23 single-core (396 to 392). Its average benchmark score of 966 also exceeds the Opteron's 957, and both chips share the same 26th percentile ranking against all CPUs.

The Celeron N5100 is the appropriate choice for anyone who needs a low-power mobile processor with integrated graphics, modern memory support, and a compact 10 nm design. Its 6-watt TDP and 63.8 mm² die size, combined with DDR4 and LPDDR4 support at 46.9 GB/s, make it suited for thin-and-light systems. The Opteron 4386, by contrast, is a server/workstation part with 8 cores, 8 threads, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache, but its 95-watt TDP, 32 nm process, 315 mm² die, and DDR3 memory support make it a much more demanding platform component.

The practical verdict depends on what the buyer values. The benchmark data gives the Celeron N5100 the edge in every recorded test, but the margins are under 2% across the board. The Opteron 4386 offers double the core count and larger caches, yet it fails to convert those specifications into a benchmark win. Buyers seeking the highest recorded Cinebench scores should select the Celeron N5100. Buyers who need a server-class socket, more cores, and higher clock speeds for non-benchmark workloads may still find the Opteron 4386 relevant, though the database cannot confirm any scenario where it outperforms the Celeron. The data is clear: the Celeron N5100 wins the head-to-head, but only by a razor-thin margin.