AMD Opteron 6276 vs Intel Core i7-4760HQ Comparison

# AMD Opteron 6276 vs Intel Core i7-4760HQ

The AMD Opteron 6276 and Intel Core i7-4760HQ represent two very different philosophies in processor design: a 16-core server monster built for throughput versus a 4-core mobile chip designed for efficiency. Yet the benchmark data reveals something surprising—despite a 12-core deficit and a vastly different market positioning, the Intel part nearly matches the AMD server processor in every Cinebench test. This analysis explores how two processors from different eras, architectures, and purposes end up with nearly identical performance profiles.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 wins all three multi-core tests, but by remarkably narrow margins. It scores 543 versus 539 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 2265 versus 2249 in R20 multi-core, and 5395 versus 5355 in R23 multi-core—each a 0.7% advantage.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The Opteron 6276 edges out the i7-4760HQ in every single-core test, though the differences are negligible. Both score 76 in Cinebench R15 single-core, and the Opteron leads 319 to 317 in R20 and 761 to 756 in R23.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i7-4760HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel processor uses Hyper-Threading to double its thread count, but still operates with significantly fewer physical resources.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-4760HQ has a higher boost clock at 3.30 GHz compared to the AMD Opteron 6276's 3.20 GHz. However, the AMD part has a higher base clock at 2.30 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 has a TDP of 115 watts, while the Intel Core i7-4760HQ has a TDP of just 47 watts. This represents a 68-watt gap in thermal envelope.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Opteron 6276 has an average benchmark score of 1560, placing it at the 39th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i7-4760HQ scores 1549 on average, sitting at the 38th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The AMD Opteron 6276 is built on the Bulldozer architecture with the codename "Interlagos," representing AMD's server-grade Opteron 6000 series. It uses a 32 nm process node manufactured by GlobalFoundries, with 2,400 million transistors spread across a dual-die design measuring 2x 315 mm². The Intel Core i7-4760HQ, in contrast, uses the Haswell architecture with the codename "Crystalwell," built on Intel's 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a single 264 mm² die.

Cache layouts reveal fundamental design philosophy differences. The Opteron 6276 has 768 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache per module, and 8 MB of L3 cache per die. The i7-4760HQ has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part distributes cache across its dual-die design to serve 16 cores, while Intel consolidates its cache for a 4-core design.

Memory architecture further separates these processors. The Opteron 6276 supports quad-channel DDR3 with 51.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. The i7-4760HQ uses dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth and lacks ECC support. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD offers Gen 2, while Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The Intel processor integrates Intel HD 5200 graphics, a feature entirely absent from the AMD server chip. The Opteron 6276 targets the server/workstation market with its G34 socket, while the i7-4760HQ is a mobile processor on BGA 1364. Both processors have locked multipliers and are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results across six Cinebench tests show an absolute sweep for the AMD Opteron 6276, yet the margins are astonishingly thin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 543 against 539 for the Intel part—a 0.7% difference. The R20 multi-core test shows 2265 versus 2249, again a 0.7% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the pattern with 5395 versus 5355.

Single-core results are even closer. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a perfect tie at 76 points each. The R20 single-core test gives the Opteron a 319 to 317 win, a 0.6% margin. R23 single-core follows with 761 versus 756, another 0.7% edge.

What makes these results remarkable is the architectural context. The Opteron 6276 has four times the physical cores of the i7-4760HQ. Yet its multi-core advantage never exceeds 0.7%. This suggests the Bulldozer architecture's shared resources and module-based design severely limit scaling, while the Haswell architecture's efficient cores with Hyper-Threading nearly close the gap through superior per-thread performance.

The single-core results are particularly telling. Despite the Opteron's higher base clock of 2.30 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and the Intel part's higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz versus 3.20 GHz, the scores are nearly identical. This indicates that Haswell's IPC advantage essentially negates the Opteron's slight frequency edge, resulting in a dead heat.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Opteron 6276 | Intel Core i7-4760HQ |

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

| Cores | 16 | 4 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 115 W | 47 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket G34 | Intel BGA 1364 |

| Architecture | Bulldozer | Haswell |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

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

| Die Size | 2x 315 mm² | 264 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 5200 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2011-11-13 | 2014-01-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $788 | N/A |

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a curious paradox. The AMD Opteron 6276 wins every head-to-head benchmark, yet its overall percentile ranking (39th) is only one point above the Intel Core i7-4760HQ (38th). The average benchmark scores reinforce this near-parity: 1560 for AMD versus 1549 for Intel.

For server and workstation workloads that leverage massive parallel processing, the Opteron 6276 technically holds the advantage, but its 16 cores deliver only marginal gains over a 4-core mobile chip. This raises serious questions about Bulldozer's efficiency. The Opteron 6276's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-1115G4E with a 0.1% higher average score, the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X at 0.1% lower, and the AMD FX-8350 at 0.2% higher—all far smaller processors.

The i7-4760HQ, despite losing all head-to-head tests, achieves near-identical performance while consuming only 47 watts versus 115 watts. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-4690S at 0.1% higher average score and Intel Core i3-9300 at 0.3% higher, showing it competes well within its mobile segment.

The data suggests that for anyone needing maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Opteron 6276 is technically the winner, but the practical difference is negligible. The i7-4760HQ offers comparable performance in a fraction of the thermal envelope, making it the more sensible choice for most applications.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Opteron 6276 advantages: The Opteron 6276 wins all six Cinebench benchmarks, albeit by margins of 0.6-0.7%. Its quad-channel memory configuration with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth doubles the Intel part's 25.6 GB/s, which could benefit memory-intensive server workloads. ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive environments. With 16 physical cores, the Opteron provides raw thread count that may scale better in highly parallel server applications, even if Cinebench shows minimal gains.

Intel Core i7-4760HQ advantages: The i7-4760HQ achieves near-identical performance with a 68-watt lower TDP, making it dramatically more power-efficient. Its 22 nm process node is smaller than AMD's 32 nm, contributing to this efficiency. The higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz provides a slight frequency advantage when needed. Integrated Intel HD 5200 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic tasks. PCIe Gen 3 support offers double the bandwidth of AMD's Gen 2. The mobile form factor on BGA 1364 makes it suitable for laptops and compact systems, a category where the G34 socket server chip cannot compete.