AMD Opteron 6276 vs Intel Core i5-4690S Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6276 and Intel Core i5-4690S represent two very different answers to the computing question of their respective eras: one is a 16-core server behemoth built for throughput, the other a 4-core desktop chip optimized for efficiency. The benchmark data reveals a surprisingly consistent pattern, with the older server part winning every single head-to-head test, yet both processors end up in the same 39th percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores separated by a mere 9 points. This suggests that while the Opteron dominates in raw compute, the i5 achieves a similar overall standing through a different combination of strengths, making the choice between them a matter of workload rather than outright superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a clear-cut division of labor. The AMD Opteron 6276 wins in every recorded benchmark category, from single-core to multi-core, across all Cinebench versions. Its most decisive victories come in the multi-core tests, where it consistently outperforms the Intel chip by roughly 17%. This is the domain of heavily threaded workloads — rendering, scientific simulation, and database processing — where the Opteron’s 16 cores can be fully utilized.

The Intel Core i5-4690S, despite losing all head-to-head matchups, has its own domain where it excels: efficiency and integrated functionality. It is not a matter of benchmark wins, but of operational advantages. The i5 consumes a 65 TDP versus the Opteron’s 115, making it a far more suitable choice for compact desktops or always-on systems where heat and power draw are primary concerns. Furthermore, the i5 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, which the Opteron completely lacks, meaning the Intel chip can power a display without a discrete GPU. The Opteron’s wins are all about raw processing power; the i5’s wins are about practicality and system-level integration.

Architecture Differences

These two CPUs are built on fundamentally different philosophies, reflecting their distinct market segments. The Opteron 6276, codenamed Interlagos, uses AMD’s Bulldozer architecture on a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It is a dual-die design, with each die measuring 315 mm² and containing 2,400 million transistors in total. Its cache layout is modular: 768 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. It supports quad-channel DDR3 memory, yielding a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and it requires a server-class AMD Socket G34 platform.

The Intel Core i5-4690S, in contrast, is a Haswell-generation desktop part built on Intel’s 22 nm process. It is a single, monolithic die of 177 mm² with 1,400 million transistors. Its cache is per-core, with 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a shared 6 MB L3. It uses dual-channel DDR3 memory, halving the Opteron’s bandwidth to 25.6 GB/s, and it lacks ECC support. The i5 is built on the Intel Socket 1150 platform. The most telling architectural difference is the core count: 16 for the Opteron versus 4 for the i5, which explains the multi-core performance gap. The Opteron’s server roots also show in its support for ECC memory, a feature absent on the desktop-focused i5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 543 against the i5’s 464, a 17% advantage. The single-core test in R15 shows the same pattern, with the Opteron at 76 and the i5 at 65, a 16.9% lead. This trend continues in Cinebench R20, where the Opteron wins multi-core 2265 to 1935 (17.1%) and single-core 319 to 273 (16.8%). The most recent tests, Cinebench R23, show identical margins: the Opteron leads 5395 to 4609 in multi-core and 761 to 650 in single-core, both by 17.1%.

The consistency of the 17% delta across all tests is striking. It suggests that the Opteron’s advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental per-thread performance lead. This is counterintuitive given that the i5 has a much higher base clock (3.20 GHz vs 2.30 GHz) and boost clock (3.90 GHz vs 3.20 GHz). The data implies that the Bulldozer architecture, despite its age and lower clock speeds, delivered more instructions per cycle in these Cinebench workloads. The i5 also has a Geekbench score (3251 multi-core, 1163 single-core) that has no Opteron equivalent in the data, so a direct comparison on that test is impossible. However, the Cinebench suite paints a clear picture: the Opteron 6276 is the faster processor, and it wins across the board.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 wins all multi-core tests. It leads by 17% in Cinebench R15 (543 vs 464), 17.1% in R20 (2265 vs 1935), and 17.1% in R23 (5395 vs 4609).

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-4690S win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Opteron winning 6 out of 6 tests, and the i5 winning 0. The i5’s only additional data point is a Geekbench score, which has no corresponding Opteron result for comparison.

Q: Is the Opteron better for single-core tasks too?

A: Surprisingly, yes. The Opteron wins single-core tests by similar margins to multi-core: 16.9% in R15 (76 vs 65), 16.8% in R20 (319 vs 273), and 17.1% in R23 (761 vs 650).

Q: What explains the Opteron’s consistent lead despite lower clock speeds?

A: The data does not provide a direct explanation, but it shows the Opteron has 16 cores versus 4, and a much larger L3 cache (8 MB per die) compared to the i5’s 6 MB shared. The benchmark results indicate the Bulldozer architecture was more efficient in these specific Cinebench workloads.

Q: Is the i5 more power-efficient?

A: Based on the TDP figures, yes. The i5 has a 65 TDP while the Opteron has a 115 TDP. This is a significant difference, but it is a design specification, not a benchmark score.

Q: Can I use the Opteron in a desktop motherboard?

A: The data indicates the Opteron uses AMD Socket G34, a server platform, while the i5 uses Intel Socket 1150, a desktop platform. These are not interchangeable.

The Verdict

The data suggests that for pure processing throughput, the AMD Opteron 6276 is the clear winner. It outperforms the Intel Core i5-4690S by 17% in every Cinebench test, both single and multi-core. This makes it the logical choice for server workloads, rendering farms, or any application that can leverage its 16 cores and 16 threads. Its quad-channel memory support and ECC capability further cement its position as a server part.

However, the i5-4690S is not without merit. Its 65 TDP makes it a far more energy-conscious option, and its integrated graphics mean a system can be built without a separate GPU. The data shows both CPUs have an identical 39th percentile ranking, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (1560 vs 1551). This indicates that the i5 achieves a comparable overall performance level through a more balanced profile, albeit without the multi-core ceiling of the Opteron. The choice is therefore dictated by use case: the Opteron for maximum compute, the i5 for desktop practicality and efficiency.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the key differences between the two processors, based solely on the provided data.

| Specification | AMD Opteron 6276 | Intel Core i5-4690S |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 16 | 4 |

| Threads | 16 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 115 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket G34 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Bulldozer | Haswell |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 2,400 million | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | 2x 315 mm² | 177 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per module) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (per die) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 4600 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2011-11-13 | 2014-04-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $788 | $224 |