CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-9320 and the AMD Opteron 6281 are archival computing artifacts from different eras, yet their benchmark scores place them in an unusually tight statistical dead heat. The data shows the i3-9320 winning all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the margin is razor-thin, every single deltaPct is either 1.1% or 1.0%. This is not a performance rivalry; it is a measurement anomaly where two completely different silicon philosophies produce nearly identical results in a modern rendering workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the uniformity of the Intel chip’s advantage. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-9320 scores 630 against the Opteron’s 623, a 1.1% lead. The single-core R15 run is 88 versus 87, also a 1.1% delta. Moving to R20, the scores are 2626 against 2598 (multicore) and 370 against 366 (single-core), again both 1.1% apart. The R23 results continue the trend: 6254 versus 6187 in multicore (1.1%) and 882 versus 873 in single-core (1.0%).

What does this mean? The Opteron 6281 has four times the cores (16 versus 4) and roughly double the memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s), yet it cannot convert that hardware advantage into any Cinebench win. The i3-9320 compensates for its core deficit with a much higher clock speed, 4.40 GHz boost versus 3.20 GHz, and a modern architecture. The single-core deltas are the most telling: a 1.1% edge in R15 and R20, and a 1.0% edge in R23. This suggests the Intel core is individually faster, and that advantage carries through even when the Opteron’s sixteen cores are all active.

There is no scenario where the Opteron wins. The data records winsA as 6 and winsB as 0. The closest the AMD chip comes is in R23 single-core, where the 873 score trails 882 by just nine points. That is a 1.0% difference, which is within the margin of run-to-run variance for most benchmark suites. The statistical interpretation is that these two processors are functionally equivalent for Cinebench workloads, despite their radically different designs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two chips is vast. The i3-9320 is built on Intel’s 14 nm process (Coffee Lake), while the Opteron 6281 uses AMD’s 32 nm process (Bulldozer, codename Interlagos). The Intel part is a monolithic 126 mm² die; the Opteron is a dual-die design with each die measuring 315 mm², totaling 2,400 million transistors. The i3-9320 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Opteron has 16 cores and 16 threads, no simultaneous multithreading on either part.

Cache hierarchies are fundamentally different. The i3-9320 allocates 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. The Opteron uses a shared 768 KB L1, a 2 MB L2 per module (not per core), and 8 MB of L3 per die. This means the Opteron’s L3 is split across two dies, while the Intel chip has a single unified pool. Memory support diverges accordingly: the i3-9320 runs DDR4 on a dual-channel bus (38.4 GB/s), while the Opteron runs DDR3 on a quad-channel bus (51.2 GB/s). Both support ECC memory, but the Opteron is a server part on AMD Socket G34, whereas the i3-9320 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1151.

The i3-9320 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630; the Opteron has no integrated graphics. PCIe generation differs, Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes for Intel, Gen 2 for AMD. The Opteron’s TDP is 130 W, more than double the i3-9320’s 62 W. The release dates are seven years apart: the Opteron launched in April 2012, the i3-9320 in April 2019. Both are end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6281 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i3-9320 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite this 4x core advantage, the Opteron does not win any of the six Cinebench tests.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Opteron 6281 offers 51.2 GB/s over a quad-channel DDR3 bus, while the i3-9320 offers 38.4 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR4 bus. The Opteron has a 33% higher theoretical bandwidth, but this does not translate into a benchmark win.

Q: Are these processors comparable in average benchmark score?

A: The i3-9320 has an average benchmark score of 1808, and the Opteron 6281 scores 1789. Both sit at the 42nd percentile of all CPUs tracked.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Opteron 6281 is rated at 130 W, while the i3-9320 is rated at 62 W. The Intel part consumes less than half the power budget.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the i3-9320 and the Opteron 6281 list ECC memory support as true. This is unusual for a desktop i3 part.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in any single test?

A: The largest delta is 1.1%, appearing in R15 multicore, R15 single-core, R20 multicore, and R20 single-core. The smallest is 1.0% in R23 single-core.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The i3-9320 has 4 cores and 4 threads; the Opteron 6281 has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.40 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. TDP is 62 W versus 130 W. Sockets are Intel Socket 1151 versus AMD Socket G34. The architecture is Coffee Lake versus Bulldozer, with codenames Coffee Lake versus Interlagos. Process nodes are 14 nm versus 32 nm. Die size is 126 mm² versus 2x 315 mm². Cache layouts differ: L1 is 64 KB per core versus 768 KB total; L2 is 256 KB per core versus 2 MB per module; L3 is 8 MB shared versus 8 MB per die. Memory support is DDR4 versus DDR3, with dual-channel versus quad-channel buses. Bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes versus Gen 2. The i3-9320 has UHD Graphics 630; the Opteron has none. Market segments are Desktop versus Server/Workstation. The i3-9320’s part number is SRF7X; the Opteron’s is OS6278WKTGGGU. The Opteron belongs to the Opteron 6000 series; the i3-9320 has no series designation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-9320 wins every benchmark in the data set, but the practical implications are narrow. Its wins are consistent across all six Cinebench tests, indicating that for single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks, it is marginally ahead. The i3-9320’s integrated graphics give it an edge for systems that do not require a discrete GPU, and its 62 W TDP makes it far easier to cool and power.

The AMD Opteron 6281’s strengths are not visible in the benchmark scores but are implicit in its specifications. Its 16 cores and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth suggest it was designed for heavily parallel, memory-bandwidth-sensitive server workloads that do not appear in the Cinebench suite. The dual-die design with 8 MB of L3 per die indicates a NUMA-aware architecture that could excel in multi-socket configurations. The Opteron’s ECC support and quad-channel DDR3 are server-oriented features, and its 130 W TDP is typical for a socket G34 part.

The data does not show the Opteron winning any test, so any use-case advantage for AMD must be inferred from its specification sheet rather than observed performance. The i3-9320 is the clear winner in the measured benchmarks, but the Opteron offers more cores and bandwidth for workloads that Cinebench does not exercise.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-9320 outperforms the AMD Opteron 6281 in every measured Cinebench test, with deltas ranging from 1.0% to 1.1%. For anyone choosing a processor for rendering workloads similar to Cinebench, the i3-9320 is the correct pick. It achieves this with 4 cores, a 4.40 GHz boost clock, and a 62 W TDP, against the Opteron’s 16 cores, 3.20 GHz boost, and 130 W TDP.

The Opteron 6281 is not without merit, but its merits are not demonstrated in this benchmark suite. Its 16 cores and 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth suggest it was built for a different class of workload, one that scales across many threads and requires high memory throughput, such as virtualization or large-scale database processing. The i3-9320’s integrated graphics and lower power draw make it more suitable for desktop use or compact systems.

Given the near-identical average benchmark scores (1808 versus 1789) and matching 42nd percentile ranking, the data suggests these are equivalent in general performance. The i3-9320 is the winner in this head-to-head, but the Opteron’s architectural advantages remain untested in the available benchmarks. The choice between them should be dictated by workload: the i3-9320 for single-socket, low-power tasks, and the Opteron for multi-core, memory-intensive server environments where its specifications, not its Cinebench scores, are what matter.