AMD Opteron 6234 vs Intel Core i7-3632QM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear and consistent victory for the Intel Core i7-3632QM across every shared test. The AMD Opteron 6234 does not register a single win in the head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel part taking all five measured workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel Core i7-3632QM scores 406 against the AMD Opteron 6234's 348, a lead of 16.7%. That same approximate margin repeats across the newer Cinebench versions. In R20 multicore, the Intel part scores 1693 versus 1453, a 16.5% advantage. R23 multicore shows 4033 versus 3461, again a 16.5% gap. The consistency of these margins across three generations of the Cinebench renderer suggests the gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

Single-threaded performance follows the same direction, with the Intel Core i7-3632QM scoring 238 in R20 single-core against 204 for the AMD Opteron 6234, a 16.7% difference. In R23 single-core, the Intel chip posts 569 versus 488, a 16.6% lead. These single-thread results are particularly telling because the AMD part has three times the physical core count, yet still loses decisively when each core is tasked individually.

Looking at the broader database percentile placements, both processors sit close to each other. The Intel Core i7-3632QM lands in the 34th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1219. The AMD Opteron 6234 sits just one percentile lower at 33, with an average benchmark score of 1191. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-2500 at 1220 and the Intel Pentium Silver N6005 at 1218, both within a fraction of a point. The Opteron's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-4460T at 1190 and the Intel Core i7-8665UE at 1193.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-3632QM is a quad-core mobile part built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, fabricated on a 22nm process by Intel. It contains 1,480 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The AMD Opteron 6234 is a server and workstation processor using the Bulldozer architecture, codenamed Interlagos, built on a 32nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs a substantially larger 2,400 million transistors across a dual-die design with two 315 mm² dies.

Threading is a key differentiator. The Intel chip supports 8 threads from its 4 physical cores, meaning each core can handle two threads. The AMD chip has 12 cores but only 12 threads, no simultaneous multithreading. Despite having triple the physical core count, the AMD part cannot match the Intel chip in the recorded multicore benchmarks.

Cache organization also differs sharply. The Intel chip provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The AMD part has 768 KB of L1 total, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Intel chip's cache is per-core, which aligns with its 4-core layout; the AMD's per-module L2 reflects the Bulldozer design where two cores share a floating-point unit.

The memory subsystem also tells a clear story. The AMD Opteron 6234 supports DDR3 memory over a quad-channel bus with a peak bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and includes ECC memory support. The Intel Core i7-3632QM uses dual-channel memory and has no ECC support. The Intel's memory bandwidth figure is not recorded, but the bus width difference is clear from the channel counts.

Power and thermal envelopes are drastically different. The Intel chip is rated at 35W TDP, designed for mobile platforms. The AMD Opteron 6234 is rated at 115W TDP, a server-class part. The Intel chip also integrates an Intel HD 4000 graphics unit, while the AMD has no integrated graphics. The AMD part is listed as end-of-life, while the Intel's production status is not specified.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-3632QM leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 238 versus 204 for the AMD Opteron 6234, a 16.7% advantage. In R23 single-core, it posts 569 versus 488, a 16.6% edge.

Q: Does the AMD Opteron 6234's higher core count translate to a multicore win?

A: No. Despite having 12 cores versus 4, the AMD Opteron 6234 loses all multicore tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel chip scores 4033 versus the AMD's 3461, a 16.5% advantage. The Intel's 8 threads outperform the AMD's 12 threads in every measured workload.

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-3632QM has a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the AMD Opteron 6234 boosts to 3.00 GHz. The base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the Intel and 2.40 GHz for the AMD.

Q: Which one supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Opteron 6234 supports ECC memory and has a quad-channel DDR3 memory bus with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Intel Core i7-3632QM does not support ECC and uses dual-channel memory.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The Intel Core i7-3632QM has a TDP of 35W, whereas the AMD Opteron 6234 has a TDP of 115W. The Intel also integrates an Intel HD 4000 graphics unit, which is absent on the AMD.

Q: Where does each CPU fall in the overall performance ranking?

A: The Intel Core i7-3632QM is in the 34th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1219. The AMD Opteron 6234 is in the 33rd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 1191.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Core i7-3632QM and the AMD Opteron 6234:

• Cores: 4 (Intel) vs 12 (AMD)
• Threads: 8 (Intel) vs 12 (AMD)
• Base Clock: 2.20 GHz (Intel) vs 2.40 GHz (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 3.20 GHz (Intel) vs 3.00 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 35W (Intel) vs 115W (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket G2 (988B) (Intel) vs AMD Socket G34 (AMD)
• Architecture: Ivy Bridge vs Bulldozer
• Codename: Ivy Bridge vs Interlagos
• Process Node: 22 nm (Intel) vs 32 nm (AMD)
• Foundry: Intel vs GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 1,480 million vs 2,400 million
• Die Size: 160 mm² vs 2x 315 mm²
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (Intel) vs 768 KB total (AMD)
• L2 Cache: 256 KB per core (Intel) vs 2 MB per module (AMD)
• L3 Cache: 6 MB shared (Intel) vs 8 MB per die (AMD)
• Memory Support: Not listed (Intel) vs DDR3 (AMD)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel vs Quad-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: Not listed vs 51.2 GB/s
• ECC Memory: No (Intel) vs Yes (AMD)
• PCIe: Not listed vs Gen 2
• Integrated Graphics: Intel HD 4000 vs None
• Market Segment: Mobile vs Server/Workstation
• Production Status: Not listed vs End-of-life
• Release Date: 2012-10-18 vs 2011-11-13
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs $377
• Part Number: Not listed vs OS6234WKTCGGU

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3632QM wins decisively in every benchmark category recorded. The data shows a 16.5% to 16.7% edge across all Cinebench tests, both multicore and single-core. This is the kind of consistent lead that indicates a fundamentally stronger architecture for general-purpose computing. The Intel part also wins on power efficiency, with a 35W TDP versus the AMD's 115W, and it includes an integrated graphics unit, making it a self-contained solution for a laptop.

The AMD Opteron 6234, on the other hand, wins in areas that the benchmarks do not capture. It offers a quad-channel memory bus with a rated bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s and ECC memory support, making it a fit for server memory reliability. It also has a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz, which is a minor advantage in some workloads, though the Intel's higher boost clock and superior architecture overcomes that in the recorded tests. The AMD's 12 physical cores could theoretically help in heavily parallel server workloads, but the database measurements do not show that translating into a win in the Cinebench R15 through R23 tests.

For a mobile or low-power system, the Intel Core i7-362QM is the clear choice. Its 35W thermal envelope and integrated graphics mean it can operate in a laptop chassis without a dedicated GPU. The AMD Opteron 6234, at 115W and with no integrated graphics, is only viable in a server or workstation with a discrete GPU and robust cooling.

The AMD's official launch MSRP was $377, but that price is not a reflection of its current status as an end-of-life server part. The Intel, with a boost clock 0.20 GHz higher, a smaller process node, and a 16.5% performance lead, is the more capable processor in the database's measured tests. The AMD retains value only in server contexts where ECC memory and quad-channel bandwidth are non-negotiable requirements, but for raw CPU throughput, the Intel wins every time.