CPU Comparison
AMD Opteron 4386
Celeron N5105
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Opteron 4386 vs Intel Celeron N5105
The Verdict
The benchmark data presents an unexpected outcome for anyone comparing these two processors by their traditional market positioning. The AMD Opteron 4386, a server/workstation part from the Opteron 4000 series, and the Intel Celeron N5105, a mobile chip from the Jasper Lake family, end up with nearly identical average benchmark scores, 957 for the AMD versus 955 for the Intel. That 0.2% difference is essentially a statistical tie, and both sit at the 26th and 25th percentiles of all CPUs respectively. However, the head-to-head results tell a different story: the Celeron N5105 wins all five shared benchmark tests, with a consistent margin of roughly 18% across both single-core and multi-core workloads.
For a builder choosing between these two, the decision comes down to platform priorities rather than raw performance. The Celeron N5105 is the clear pick for anyone who needs a low-power, modern, integrated solution, its 10W TDP versus the Opteron's 95W TDP represents a massive efficiency advantage, and it includes UHD Graphics 24EU integrated graphics, which the Opteron lacks entirely. The Opteron 4386, on the other hand, offers eight physical cores and an 8MB L3 cache, making it the choice for workloads that genuinely scale with core count, even if the benchmark data suggests its older Piledriver architecture doesn't translate those cores into superior Cinebench scores. If you're assembling a compact, energy-conscious system with minimal cooling requirements, the Celeron wins outright. If you need a legacy server socket with eight cores and don't care about efficiency, the Opteron remains a viable option, but the data shows the Celeron outperforms it in every measured test.
Architecture Differences
The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by a decade of semiconductor evolution. The AMD Opteron 4386 uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Seoul, built on a 32nm process node with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. It's a true multi-core server design with eight cores and eight threads, running at a 3.10 GHz base clock with a 3.80 GHz boost. The Intel Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture, codenamed Jasper Lake, fabricated on Intel's 10nm process with a 63.8 mm² die size. It packs four cores and four threads with a 2.00 GHz base clock and 2.90 GHz boost.
Cache configurations diverge significantly. The Opteron has a 384 KB L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Celeron lists 64 KB per core for L1, 1.5 MB shared L2, and 4 MB shared L3. Memory support separates them further: the Opteron uses DDR3, while the Celeron supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 with dual-channel memory and a 46.9 GB/s memory bandwidth rating. The Celeron also brings PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, integrated UHD Graphics 24EU, and comes in a BGA 1338 socket, a soldered mobile package. The Opteron uses the AMD Socket C32, a server socket designed for socketed installation. The Celeron's production status is listed as end-of-life, while the Opteron's production status is not specified. The Opteron's release date is December 3, 2012; no release date is listed for the Celeron.
Where Each One Wins
Looking strictly at the benchmark results, the Intel Celeron N5105 wins every single head-to-head comparison. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 341 versus the Opteron's 280, a 17.9% advantage. That pattern repeats across Cinebench R20 and R23 multicore tests, with the Celeron delivering 1,422 versus 1,168 in R20 and 3,388 versus 2,782 in R23, each time holding that same ~17.9% margin. Single-core performance tells the same story: the Celeron leads by 18% in both Cinebench R20 (200 vs 164) and R23 (478 vs 392). The Celeron also has additional Geekbench scores that aren't matched by the Opteron in this dataset, 1,189 multicore and 516 single-core, providing extra evidence of its general-purpose capability.
The Opteron's strengths don't appear in the benchmark suite provided, but its specification sheet hints at where it might excel. Eight cores versus four means better thread-level parallelism for heavily threaded server workloads. The 8MB L3 cache is double the Celeron's 4MB, which can help with working sets that exceed the smaller cache. Its 95W TDP, while power-hungry, suggests sustained operation is expected, server parts are built for 24/7 duty. The socketed C32 design allows for replacement and upgrades, unlike the soldered BGA 1338 package of the Celeron. However, the data is unambiguous: in every measured Cinebench workload, the Celeron N5105 outperforms the Opteron 4386 by a nearly uniform 18% margin.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?
A: The Intel Celeron N5105 wins all multi-core tests. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 3,388 versus the Opteron's 2,782, a 17.9% advantage. The same margin appears in R15 (341 vs 280) and R20 (1,422 vs 1,168).
Q: Is the AMD Opteron 4386 better for single-threaded tasks?
A: No. The Celeron N5105 leads by 18% in single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 478 for the Celeron versus 392 for the Opteron, and R20 shows 200 versus 164.
Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?
A: They are nearly identical. The Opteron 4386 averages 957, while the Celeron N5105 averages 955, a difference of only 0.2%. The Opteron's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-950 at 957, and the Celeron's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon W3570 at 955.
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The AMD Opteron 4386 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Celeron N5105 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite having half the cores, the Celeron still wins all benchmark comparisons.
Q: What are the power consumption differences?
A: The Celeron N5105 has a 10W TDP, while the Opteron 4386 has a 95W TDP. This makes the Celeron dramatically more power-efficient, consuming roughly one-tenth the thermal envelope.
Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?
A: The the benchmark database shows both list ECC memory as false. Neither processor supports ECC memory according to the data.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The five head-to-head Cinebench tests paint a remarkably consistent picture. The Intel Celeron N5105 wins every single matchup, and the margin barely varies, it hovers between 17.9% and 18% across all tests. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Celeron scores 341 against the Opteron's 280, a delta of -17.9% from the Opteron's perspective. That exact percentage repeats in R20 multicore (1,422 vs 1,168) and R23 multicore (3,388 vs 2,782). The single-core tests show an identical pattern: R20 single-core delivers 200 for the Celeron versus 164 for the Opteron (-18%), and R23 single-core shows 478 versus 392 (-18%).
The most striking finding is that the Opteron's eight cores cannot overcome the Celeron's four cores in multi-threaded work. Despite a 2x core advantage, the Opteron falls behind by nearly 18% in every multicore benchmark. This indicates that the Piledriver architecture's per-core efficiency is drastically lower than Tremont's, and that modern workloads benefit more from efficient execution than raw core count. The average benchmark scores corroborate this: both processors land within 0.2% of each other overall, with the Opteron at 957 and the Celeron at 955. Both sit near the bottom quartile of all CPUs, at the 26th and 25th percentiles respectively, placing them alongside older Intel Xeon parts like the W3550 and W3570.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. Core and thread counts: the Opteron 4386 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Celeron N5105 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Clock speeds: the Opteron runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, whereas the Celeron runs at 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. TDP is a major differentiator: 95W for the Opteron versus 10W for the Celeron. Socket types are incompatible: AMD Socket C32 for the Opteron, Intel BGA 1338 for the Celeron.
Architecture and process: the Opteron uses Piledriver on 32nm with a 315 mm² die, while the Celeron uses Tremont on 10nm with a 63.8 mm² die. The Opteron's transistor count is listed at 1,200 million; the Celeron's is not specified. Cache layouts differ substantially: the Opteron has 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB L3 shared; the Celeron has 64 KB L1 per core, 1.5 MB L2 shared, and 4 MB L3 shared. Memory support: the Opteron uses DDR3, while the Celeron uses DDR4 and LPDDR4 with dual-channel support and 46.9 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Celeron has PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes and integrated UHD Graphics 24EU; the Opteron has no PCIe or integrated graphics listed. The Opteron's market segment is Server/Workstation; the Celeron's is Mobile. The Celeron is marked as end-of-life, while the Opteron's production status is not specified. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier or ECC memory support. Part numbers are OS4386WLU8KHK for the Opteron and SRKGV for the Celeron.