AMD Opteron 6220 vs Intel Core i7-3612QE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is unusually one-sided. The AMD Opteron 6220 wins all six Cinebench comparisons against the Intel Core i7-3612QE, but the margins are consistently narrow. In the R15 multicore test, the Opteron scores 407 against 399, a 2% advantage. The R15 singlecore result shows 57 versus 56, a 1.8% lead. Those are the two closest margins in the set, and they set the tone for the rest of the comparison.

The R20 multicore benchmark repeats the pattern: the Opteron posts 1696, while the Intel chip records 1666. That is a 1.8% gap. The R20 singlecore test yields 239 versus 235, a 1.7% edge. Moving to R23, the Opteron scores 4040 in multicore against 3967, again a 1.8% difference. The R23 singlecore result is 570 versus 560, also 1.8%. Every single test favors the AMD part, but no test shows a decisive breakaway. The largest delta across all six tests is the 2% in R15 multicore, and the smallest is 1.7% in R20 singlecore.

The average benchmark score for the Opteron 6220 is 1168, while the i7-3612QE sits at 1147. That is a roughly 1.8% gap in the aggregate, consistent with the individual test deltas. The percentile ranking versus all CPUs is identical for both parts at 33, meaning the database places them in the same performance tier despite the consistent wins for the AMD chip. The nearest rivals for the Opteron include the Intel Core i5-3570S at an average score of 1169 with a delta of -0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-2960XM also at 1169 with -0.1%. The Intel Core i5-3450 sits at 1166 with a delta of 0.1%. For the i7-3612QE, the closest neighbors are the AMD Opteron 4284 at 1146 with a delta of 0.1%, the Intel Core i7-2600S also at 1146 with 0.1%, and the Intel Core i5-4430 at 1149 with -0.2%.

What matters here is not the magnitude of any single win but the consistency. The Opteron 6220 takes every recorded benchmark, yet the differences are small enough that they could disappear in a different workload mix. The data shows a stable but modest advantage for the AMD server part across all three Cinebench generations, from R15 through R23.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is wide, even if the benchmark scores are close. The AMD Opteron 6220 uses the Bulldozer architecture under the Interlagos codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,400 million transistors across a die size of 2x 315 mm². The Intel Core i7-3612QE uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel, with 1,400 million transistors on a single die of 160 mm². The process node difference is 10 nm, which explains the stark contrast in power and physical footprint.

Core counts diverge significantly. The Opteron has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the i7-3612QE has 4 cores and 8 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading. The cache layout reflects these different designs. The Opteron has 768 KB of L1, 2 MB per module of L2, and 8 MB per die of L3. The Intel chip has 64 KB per core of L1, 256 KB per core of L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Opteron's total cache is larger, but the per-core allocation is thinner because it has twice as many physical cores.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The Opteron runs a 3.00 GHz base clock with a 3.60 GHz boost. The i7-3612QE runs a 2.10 GHz base with a 3.10 GHz boost. The AMD part has a 0.90 GHz higher base clock and a 0.50 GHz higher boost clock. That clock advantage is likely why the Opteron edges ahead in singlecore tests despite the architectural differences.

Memory support also separates the two. The Opteron uses DDR3 with a quad-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, plus ECC support. The i7-3612QE uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and no ECC support; no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for it. The Opteron's memory subsystem is clearly built for server workloads where bandwidth and error correction matter. The Intel chip is designed for mobile use, which explains its absence of ECC and narrower memory path.

Power consumption is the most dramatic difference. The Opteron has a TDP of 115 watts, while the i7-3612QE has a TDP of 35 watts. That is an 80 watt gap, or more than three times the Intel part's thermal budget. The Opteron uses the AMD Socket G34, while the Intel chip uses the BGA 1023 socket, which is soldered onto mobile boards. The Opteron is a server/workstation part, end-of-life, released on 2011-11-13. The i7-3612QE is a mobile part released on 2012-04-28, and it includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics. The Opteron has no integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the Opteron 6220 a clean sweep of all six tests, but the context matters. In raw Cinebench performance, the AMD part wins every multi-core and single-core test, with margins between 1.7% and 2%. Those are real wins, but they are narrow. The Opteron's higher base and boost clocks, combined with its 8 physical cores, give it a consistent edge in rendering workloads that scale with clock speed and core count.

The i7-3612QE wins in areas not covered by the benchmark suite. Its 35 watt TDP versus 115 watts makes it suitable for thin-and-light mobile systems where cooling and battery life are priorities. The Opteron's 115 watt TDP demands a serious cooling solution and a spacious chassis, which is why it targets server racks and workstations. The Intel chip also includes integrated HD 4000 graphics, meaning it can drive a display without a separate GPU. The Opteron has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete adapter.

The memory bus also splits them by use case. The Opteron's quad-channel DDR3 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support suits memory-heavy server tasks like virtualization and database processing. The i7-3612QE's dual-channel bus without ECC suits client workloads where moderate memory throughput and low power matter more. The Opteron's larger L3 cache per die, 8 MB against 6 MB, may help in workloads with high cache reuse, though the per-core share is smaller.

For single-threaded tasks, the Opteron wins every recorded single-core test, but the margins are 1.7% to 1.8%. That suggests the two chips are nearly identical in per-thread performance, with the Opteron's clock speed advantage barely offsetting the i7's newer architecture. For multi-threaded tasks, the Opteron's 8 cores versus 4 cores with 8 threads gives it a structural edge, yet the advantage remains under 2%. The data shows the i7-3612QE's SMT implementation is efficient enough to nearly match a chip with twice the physical core count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R15 multicore?

A: The AMD Opteron 6220 scores 407 against the Intel Core i7-3612QE's 399, a 2% advantage.

Q: What is the singlecore difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The Opteron 6220 scores 239, while the i7-3612QE scores 235, giving the AMD chip a 1.7% lead.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The Opteron 6220 has a TDP of 115 watts, while the i7-3612QE has a TDP of 35 watts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Opteron 6220 supports ECC memory, while the i7-3612QE does not.

Q: What is the memory bus width for each?

A: The Opteron 6220 uses a quad-channel memory bus, while the i7-3612QE uses a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-3612QE includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The AMD Opteron 6220 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The Opteron 6220 has an average benchmark score of 1168, and the i7-3612QE has an average of 1147.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow victory for the AMD Opteron 6220 in raw Cinebench performance. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from 1.7% to 2%. The average benchmark score of 1168 versus 1147 reinforces that picture. Anyone choosing purely on benchmark scores should pick the Opteron 6220.

But the database also shows why that choice is not automatic. The i7-3612QE matches the Opteron's percentile ranking at 33, and its nearest rivals overlap heavily with the Opteron's. The Intel chip delivers nearly identical Cinebench scores while consuming 80 fewer watts, at 35 watts versus 115 watts. That makes it the right choice for mobile systems, compact desktops, or any deployment where thermal limits are strict. The Opteron's quad-channel memory, ECC support, and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth make it the right choice for server workloads where data integrity and memory throughput matter more than power efficiency.

Both parts sit in the 33rd percentile of all CPUs, which means neither is a performance leader in the broader database. The Opteron is an end-of-life server part from 2011, and the i7-3612QE is a mobile part from 2012. For a server rack where power is available and ECC is non-negotiable, the Opteron 6220 wins on the recorded benchmarks and memory features. For a laptop or low-power workstation where every watt counts and integrated graphics are a plus, the i7-3612QE is the stronger choice despite losing every Cinebench test. The verdict depends on the platform, not the scores. The benchmark data gives the Opteron the performance crown, but the i7-3612QE takes the efficiency crown, and the database records no contest between the two on that axis.