AMD Opteron 6328 vs Intel Core i7-3610QE Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6328 and Intel Core i7-3610QE occupy the same performance tier despite radically different designs. Their average benchmark scores sit nearly identical — 1304 for the AMD part against 1297 for the Intel part, a delta of just 0.5%. Both land in the 35th percentile of all CPUs in the database, making them direct contemporaries in overall capability. The data shows a fascinating split: the eight-core AMD server chip and the four-core Intel mobile chip trade blows across Cinebench versions, with the Intel part taking five of six head-to-head tests, but by margins so slim they fall within run-to-run variance. This is a comparison of two very different philosophies arriving at the same destination.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3610QE holds the edge in the majority of the benchmark suite. It wins the Cinebench R15 multicore test with a score of 456 against 454, the R20 multicore test at 1903 versus 1894, and the R23 multicore test at 4533 versus 4510. In single-core tests, Intel also leads — 268 to 267 in R20 single-core and 639 to 636 in R23 single-core. The largest Intel advantage is a mere 0.5% in R20 multicore, which is negligible in real-world terms. Intel also brings integrated graphics to the table with the HD 4000, a feature entirely absent from the AMD part, making it the better fit for systems that cannot accommodate a discrete GPU.

The AMD Opteron 6328 claims exactly one head-to-head victory: the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where both chips score 64, but the winner designation goes to AMD based on the delta calculation of 0%. This is a statistical tie rather than a meaningful performance win. However, the AMD chip wins in other dimensions that matter for server deployments. It supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not, and it offers quad-channel DDR3 memory access with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, whereas the Intel chip is limited to dual-channel. For memory-heavy server workloads, the AMD platform provides structural advantages that simple benchmark scores do not capture.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. AMD's Opteron 6328 uses the Piledriver architecture under the codename Abu Dhabi, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packages eight cores with eight threads across two dies, each die measuring 315 mm², totaling 630 mm² of silicon and 2,400 million transistors. The cache hierarchy consists of 384 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. This is a server-oriented design with a 115 W TDP, fitting into the AMD Socket G34 platform.

Intel's Core i7-3610QE uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel's own foundries. It packs four cores with eight threads thanks to Hyper-Threading, all on a single 160 mm² die containing 1,400 million transistors. The cache layout is simpler: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The TDP is dramatically lower at 45 W, fitting the mobile segment on Intel Socket G2 (988B). Intel integrates HD 4000 graphics directly into the package, while AMD's chip has no integrated graphics at all. The Intel part also uses a smaller process node, which explains its lower power consumption and smaller die size despite comparable performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i7-3610QE wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests, but by fractions of a percent. It scores 456 to 454 in R15, 1903 to 1894 in R20, and 4533 to 4510 in R23. These margins range from 0.4% to 0.5%, which is effectively a tie.

Q: Does the AMD Opteron 6328 support ECC memory?

A: Yes. The AMD Opteron 6328 supports ECC memory and features quad-channel DDR3 with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core i7-3610QE does not support ECC memory and is limited to dual-channel memory.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The AMD Opteron 6328 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i7-3610QE has 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to match the thread count.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i7-3610QE includes integrated graphics, specifically the Intel HD 4000. The AMD Opteron 6328 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare?

A: They are essentially identical. In Cinebench R15, both score 64. In R20, Intel scores 268 against AMD's 267. In R23, Intel scores 639 against AMD's 636. Intel edges ahead by 0.4% to 0.5% in the latter two tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The AMD Opteron 6328 has an average benchmark score of 1304, while the Intel Core i7-3610QE has 1297. The AMD part is 0.5% ahead in this aggregate metric, though the Intel part wins more individual tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Opteron 6328 offers 8 physical cores, while the Intel Core i7-3610QE offers 4 cores with 8 threads. AMD's base clock runs at 3.20 GHz with a boost of 3.80 GHz, compared to Intel's 2.30 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. TDP is a major differentiator: 115 W for AMD versus 45 W for Intel. The socket types are entirely different — AMD Socket G34 for the Opteron, Intel Socket G2 (988B) for the Core i7.

The process nodes differ, with AMD using 32 nm at GlobalFoundries and Intel using 22 nm at Intel. Transistor counts are 2,400 million for AMD and 1,400 million for Intel. Die sizes are 2x 315 mm² for AMD versus a single 160 mm² for Intel. Cache structures are not directly comparable: AMD uses 384 KB L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die, while Intel uses 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support differs as well: AMD supports quad-channel DDR3 with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and ECC, while Intel supports dual-channel DDR3 without ECC. The AMD chip has no integrated graphics; the Intel chip includes HD 4000. AMD's market segment is Server/Workstation, while Intel's is Mobile. The AMD part is marked as end-of-life, with a launch MSRP of $575. The Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a story of near-perfect parity. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel wins 456 to 454, a delta of -0.4%. The single-core R15 test is a dead heat at 64 for both, with AMD declared the winner by a 0% delta. Moving to R20, Intel takes multicore 1903 to 1894 (-0.5%) and single-core 268 to 267 (-0.4%). The R23 results mirror this pattern: Intel wins multicore 4533 to 4510 (-0.5%) and single-core 639 to 636 (-0.5%). Across all six tests, Intel wins five, but the largest margin is 0.5%.

The overall average benchmark scores place the AMD chip marginally ahead at 1304 versus 1297 for Intel, a 0.5% difference in AMD's favor. This creates an interesting paradox: Intel wins the majority of direct head-to-head tests, yet the aggregate average slightly favors AMD. The Intel chip also has a Geekbench result not available for the AMD part, scoring 1954 in multicore and 560 in single-core, which contributes to its average. The nearest rivals for the AMD chip include the Intel Core i5-6400 at 1307 (-0.2%), the AMD Athlon Gold 7220U at 1311 (-0.6%), and the Intel Core i7-3770T at 1314 (-0.7%). For Intel, the nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-3570K at 1293 (0.3%), the AMD Opteron 6272 at 1288 (0.7%), and the Intel Core i7-3630QM at 1289 (0.6%). Both chips sit comfortably in a tight cluster of mid-range performers.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice based on platform needs rather than raw performance. The Intel Core i7-3610QE is the better pick for mobile or compact systems where the 45 W TDP and integrated HD 4000 graphics matter. It wins five of six head-to-head benchmarks, albeit by margins under 1%, and its dual-channel memory is sufficient for most workloads. The lack of ECC support is a drawback for reliability-critical applications, but the lower power envelope and integrated graphics make it far easier to deploy in space-constrained designs.

The AMD Opteron 6328 is the better pick for server environments where ECC memory and quad-channel bandwidth are non-negotiable. Its 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth and ECC support are structural advantages that no benchmark score can override. The 115 W TDP and lack of integrated graphics are acceptable trade-offs in a server chassis. The eight physical cores may also provide more predictable scaling in heavily threaded server workloads, even if Cinebench scores show parity with Intel's four-core design. For anyone building a memory-sensitive server with a 575-dollar launch MSRP, the AMD part delivers platform features that the Intel chip simply cannot match. For anyone needing a low-power, self-contained processor, the Intel part is the logical choice. The performance difference between them is effectively zero; the platform difference is enormous.