AMD Opteron 6328 vs Intel Core i7-3630QM Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6328 and Intel Core i7-3630QM represent two fundamentally different philosophies from the same era, yet their benchmark results land surprisingly close together. The Opteron is a server-grade, dual-die Piledriver monster with eight cores, while the i7 is a mobile Ivy Bridge quad-core with hyper-threading. Despite the Opteron sweeping all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the average benchmark scores tell a tighter story: the Opteron sits at 1304 against the i7's 1289, a gap of roughly one percent. Both processors occupy the 35th percentile of all CPUs, making them statistical equals in the broader performance landscape, even as their architectural blueprints could hardly be more different.

Architecture Differences

The Opteron 6328 is built on AMD's Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, and belongs to the Opteron 6000 series. It is a 32 nm part fabricated by GlobalFoundries, packing 2,400 million transistors across two 315 mm² dies. The i7-3630QM uses Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process, with 1,480 million transistors on a single 160 mm² die. The process node advantage is significant: Intel's smaller 22 nm node allows for higher efficiency and lower power draw, while AMD's older 32 nm node requires more silicon to achieve similar results.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Opteron has eight physical cores and eight threads, while the i7 has four physical cores and eight threads via hyper-threading. This means the Opteron's thread count is entirely physical, whereas the i7 relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach parity. The Opteron's cache hierarchy is organized per module and per die: 384 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The i7 uses a more conventional layout: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Opteron's dual-die design means its L3 is split, while the i7's is unified.

Memory architecture also separates them. The Opteron supports quad-channel DDR3 with a theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and includes ECC memory support, reflecting its server pedigree. The i7 is dual-channel with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe generation differs too: the Opteron uses Gen 2, while the i7 supports Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU. The i7 also includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics; the Opteron has none. The Opteron's TDP is 115 watts versus the i7's 45 watts, a gap that underscores the mobile versus server market split.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the Opteron winning every single head-to-head test, but the margins are narrow. In multi-core workloads, the Opteron's eight physical cores give it a consistent edge, ranging from 3.3% to 3.4% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. This suggests that for heavily threaded rendering tasks, the extra physical cores matter more than the i7's higher clock speed per core. The Opteron also wins single-core tests, but by slightly larger margins of 3.2% to 4.9%, which is surprising given the i7's smaller process node and higher boost clock relative to its base.

The i7's strengths are not visible in the Cinebench suite, but its architecture suggests advantages in power efficiency and mobility. With a 45-watt TDP versus 115 watts, the i7 is designed for laptops and can sustain performance where the Opteron would require substantial cooling. The i7's integrated graphics provide a complete platform solution, while the Opteron requires a discrete GPU. The i7's PCIe Gen 3 support offers double the bandwidth per lane compared to the Opteron's Gen 2, which could benefit certain storage or GPU workloads.

The Opteron's quad-channel memory bus and ECC support make it the choice for error-corrected, high-bandwidth memory environments, common in servers. The i7's dual-channel setup is adequate for mobile use but cannot match the Opteron's memory throughput. The Opteron's larger L3 cache per die (8 MB versus 6 MB shared) may help in workloads with large working sets, though the split design complicates direct comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head Cinebench results all favor the AMD Opteron 6328. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 454 against the i7's 439, a 3.4% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a 4.9% lead, with scores of 64 and 61 respectively. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron posts 1894 in multi-core versus 1832, again 3.4% ahead; single-core is 267 versus 258, a 3.5% lead. The R23 results continue the pattern: multi-core 4510 versus 4364 (3.3% ahead) and single-core 636 versus 616 (3.2% ahead).

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across all six tests, the Opteron's advantage stays between 3.2% and 4.9%, never exceeding five percent. The single-core margins are slightly larger than multi-core in the R15 and R20 tests, which is counterintuitive given the Opteron's lower per-core clock speed on paper. The Opteron's base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost of 3.80 GHz, while the i7 runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. Despite the i7's architectural efficiency, the Opteron's higher raw clocks appear to overcome the node disadvantage in single-threaded tasks.

The i7's only additional benchmark outside Cinebench is Geekbench, where it scores 2111 multi-core and 633 single-core. The Opteron has no Geekbench data in this set, so a direct comparison is impossible. The i7's Geekbench single-core score of 633 aligns closely with its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 616, suggesting a consistent per-thread performance level. The Opteron's R23 single-core of 636 is slightly higher than the i7's Geekbench number, but cross-benchmark comparisons should be treated cautiously.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Opteron has 8 cores and 8 threads; the i7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, with boosts of 3.80 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. TDP is 115 watts versus 45 watts. Sockets are completely different: AMD Socket G34 for the Opteron, Intel Socket G2 (988B) for the i7. The process node is 32 nm versus 22 nm, with transistor counts of 2,400 million versus 1,480 million and die sizes of 2x 315 mm² versus 160 mm².

Cache configurations are not directly comparable. The Opteron lists L1 as 384 KB, L2 as 2 MB per module, and L3 as 8 MB per die. The i7 lists L1 as 64 KB per core, L2 as 256 KB per core, and L3 as 6 MB shared. Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Opteron uses quad-channel with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and ECC, while the i7 uses dual-channel with 25.6 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe is Gen 2 for the Opteron and Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the i7. The i7 has integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics; the Opteron has none. The Opteron's launch MSRP was $575, while the i7's was $378. Both are end-of-life products, with the Opteron released on November 4, 2012, and the i7 on September 29, 2012. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6328 has 8 physical cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i7-3630QM has 4 physical cores and 8 threads, relying on hyper-threading to match thread count.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Opteron has a TDP of 115 watts, which is more than double the i7's 45 watts. This reflects the Opteron's server-oriented design versus the i7's mobile focus.

Q: Does the i7-3630QM include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i7 includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Opteron 6328 has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate discrete GPU.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Opteron 6328 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-3630QM does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Opteron's quad-channel memory bus provides 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i7's dual-channel bus provides 25.6 GB/s. The Opteron's bandwidth is more than double.

Q: Did the Opteron win every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: Yes, the Opteron won all six Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 3.2% to 4.9%. The i7 won zero head-to-head tests in this dataset.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner in raw performance: the AMD Opteron 6328. It wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison, with consistent margins around 3-5%. For users running heavily threaded rendering workloads, the Opteron's eight physical cores provide a tangible advantage that shows up across R15, R20, and R23. Its single-core wins are also notable, suggesting the higher clock speeds offset the architectural differences.

The Intel Core i7-3630QM wins in every efficiency and platform metric. Its 45-watt TDP makes it viable for laptops, while the Opteron's 115 watts demand a server chassis. The i7's integrated graphics, PCIe Gen 3 support, and smaller 22 nm die all point to a modern, integrated mobile solution. Its dual-channel memory is sufficient for most tasks, though it cannot match the Opteron's quad-channel bandwidth or ECC support.

The average benchmark scores nearly cancel out: 1304 for the Opteron versus 1289 for the i7, and both sit at the 35th percentile of all CPUs. This suggests that for general-purpose use, the two are effectively interchangeable in performance, with the Opteron's Cinebench leads being too small to matter in real-world mixed workloads. The choice comes down to platform: the Opteron for a server with ECC memory and high memory bandwidth, the i7 for a mobile system with integrated graphics and low power draw. Neither is a clear winner for a desktop user; the Opteron's server features are wasted without the matching infrastructure, and the i7's mobile design limits its upgrade potential. The Opteron takes the performance crown in this dataset, but the i7 wins on efficiency and integration.