CPU Comparison
AMD Opteron 6328
Celeron G6900T
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Opteron 6328 vs Intel Celeron G6900T
The Intel Celeron G6900T and AMD Opteron 6328 occupy the same overall performance percentile (35th), yet they are fundamentally different products. The Celeron is a modern, low-power desktop part built on Alder Lake, while the Opteron is a legacy server processor from the Piledriver era. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Opteron wins every head-to-head benchmark by a consistent margin of roughly 31%, while the Celeron offers a dramatically newer platform and feature set. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 1321 for the Celeron versus 1304 for the Opteron, but this masks the fact that the Opteron’s wins are all in multi-threaded and single-threaded Cinebench tests, where its eight cores and higher clock speeds dominate.
Where Each One Wins
The AMD Opteron 6328 is the clear performance winner across all five head-to-head benchmark tests. Its largest victory comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 267 against the Celeron’s 184, a 31.1% advantage. The multi-core results tell a similar story: in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Opteron scores 4510 versus the Celeron’s 3117, a 30.9% lead. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 multi-core (454 vs 314, 30.8% ahead) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (1894 vs 1309, 30.9% ahead). Even in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Celeron’s newer architecture might be expected to shine, the Opteron leads 636 to 440, a 30.8% margin. The Opteron’s wins are consistent and substantial, making it the superior choice for any compute-heavy workload that relies on raw CPU throughput.
The Intel Celeron G6900T, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, wins in platform-level attributes. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Opteron is limited to DDR3. The Celeron also features PCIe Gen 5, compared to the Opteron’s PCIe Gen 2. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 710, whereas the Opteron has no integrated graphics. The Celeron’s 35W TDP is a fraction of the Opteron’s 115W, making it far more suitable for compact, power-efficient builds. Its production status is Active, while the Opteron is End-of-life. For workloads that prioritize modern connectivity, low power draw, and integrated graphics, the Celeron is the more practical choice, even if it loses on raw performance.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Celeron G6900T is built on Intel’s Alder Lake architecture, codenamed Alder Lake-S, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It features 2 cores and 2 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and no boost clock. Its cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron 6328, by contrast, uses AMD’s Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, on a 32 nm process node fabricated by GlobalFoundries. It offers 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache configuration includes 384 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron’s transistor count is listed at 2,400 million, with a die size of 2x 315 mm²; the Celeron’s transistor count and die size are not provided.
The memory and I/O capabilities further separate the two. The Celeron supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Opteron supports quad-channel DDR3 with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Celeron does not support ECC memory, whereas the Opteron does. The Celeron’s PCIe is Gen 5, and the Opteron’s is Gen 2. The Celeron has integrated UHD Graphics 710; the Opteron has none. The Celeron is a Desktop market segment part, while the Opteron is a Server/Workstation part. The Celeron was released on 2022-01-03, and the Opteron on 2012-11-04, a gap of roughly nine years. The Celeron’s launch MSRP is $42; the Opteron’s is $575.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The AMD Opteron 6328 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Celeron G6900T has 2 cores and 2 threads.
Q: Does the Celeron G6900T support ECC memory?
A: No, the Celeron G6900T does not support ECC memory. The Opteron 6328 does support ECC memory.
Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?
A: The Opteron 6328 scores 4510, which is 30.9% higher than the Celeron G6900T’s score of 3117.
Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?
A: The Intel Celeron G6900T includes UHD Graphics 710. The AMD Opteron 6328 does not have integrated graphics.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Celeron G6900T supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Opteron 6328 supports DDR3 memory.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The AMD Opteron 6328 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Intel Celeron G6900T does not have a boost clock; its base clock is 2.80 GHz.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The Celeron G6900T has 2 cores and 2 threads, while the Opteron 6328 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Celeron’s base clock is 2.80 GHz, and it has no boost clock; the Opteron’s base clock is 3.20 GHz, with a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Celeron’s TDP is 35W, and the Opteron’s is 115W. The Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Opteron uses AMD Socket G34. The Celeron is built on a 10 nm process, and the Opteron on a 32 nm process. The Celeron’s L1 cache is 80 KB per core, its L2 is 1.25 MB per core, and its L3 is 4 MB shared; the Opteron’s L1 is 384 KB, its L2 is 2 MB per module, and its L3 is 8 MB per die.
Memory support differs sharply: the Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, while the Opteron supports DDR3 with a quad-channel bus and a listed memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Celeron has no ECC support, and the Opteron does. The Celeron’s PCIe is Gen 5, and the Opteron’s is Gen 2. The Celeron has integrated UHD Graphics 710, and the Opteron has none. The Celeron is a Desktop part, and the Opteron is a Server/Workstation part. The Celeron’s production status is Active, and the Opteron’s is End-of-life. The Celeron was released on 2022-01-03, and the Opteron on 2012-11-04. The Celeron’s launch MSRP is $42, and the Opteron’s is $575. The Celeron’s part number is SRL68, and the Opteron’s is OS6328WKT8GHK.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD Opteron 6328 wins all five tests, with every victory falling in a narrow band between 30.8% and 31.1%. The smallest margin is a 30.8% lead in both Cinebench R15 multi-core (454 vs 314) and Cinebench R23 single-core (636 vs 440). The largest margin is a 31.1% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Opteron scores 267 against the Celeron’s 184. The two remaining tests, Cinebench R20 multi-core and Cinebench R23 multi-core, both show a 30.9% advantage for the Opteron, with scores of 1894 vs 1309 and 4510 vs 3117, respectively.
These results indicate that the Opteron’s advantage is not limited to multi-threaded workloads, where its 8 cores would naturally outperform the Celeron’s 2 cores. The single-core tests show an equally large gap, which is more surprising given the Celeron’s newer Alder Lake architecture. The Opteron’s higher base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz, combined with its larger L3 cache of 8 MB per die, appear to overcome any architectural efficiency gains from the Celeron’s 10 nm process. The data suggests that the Opteron’s raw clock speed and cache capacity are more decisive in these Cinebench workloads than the Celeron’s architectural advantages.
Notably, the Celeron’s nearest rivals in the overall benchmark database include the Intel Core i5-2500K, which scores 1329, and the Intel Core i7-3770T, which scores 1314. The Opteron’s nearest rivals include the AMD Athlon Gold 7220U, which scores 1311, and the Intel Core i5-6400, which scores 1307. Both processors sit near the 35th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are comparable in aggregate performance to mid-range processors from several generations ago. However, the Opteron’s consistent 31% lead in the head-to-head tests is not reflected in its average benchmark score of 1304, which is slightly lower than the Celeron’s 1321. This discrepancy is due to the fact that the Celeron has additional Geekbench scores, 2460 multi-core and 1422 single-core, that are not present in the Opteron’s benchmark set, pulling its average up. The Opteron’s benchmark set is limited to Cinebench tests, where it excels, but its overall average is dragged down by the absence of Geekbench data.