CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The two are effectively tied. The Intel Core i5-4590S averages 1493 across all benchmark results, while the AMD Opteron 6344 averages 1492. The nearest-rival data shows a deltaPct of 0.1% in favor of the Intel part.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 wins decisively, scoring 5158 versus the Intel Core i5-4590S's 4338. That is a 15.9% advantage for the Opteron in the multi-threaded workload.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core tests?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 also wins every single-core test in the head-to-head data. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 728 against the Intel's 612, a 15.9% gap. The same pattern holds in R15, R20, and Geekbench (where the Intel scores 1126 single-core, though no Opteron Geekbench result is listed).

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-4590S has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD Opteron 6344 has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Opteron also has larger cache pools: 576 KB L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die, versus the Intel's 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Opteron 6344 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-4590S does not. Both support DDR3, but the Opteron uses a quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel uses dual-channel with no bandwidth figure listed.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 is marked as end-of-life in the production status field. The Intel Core i5-4590S does not have a production status listed in the data, implying it may still be in active production or the status is simply unknown.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-4590S is built on Intel's Haswell architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The chip uses a conventional layout with 4 physical cores, each with 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache, sharing 6 MB of L3 cache. It includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, a feature the AMD chip lacks entirely.

The AMD Opteron 6344, codenamed Abu Dhabi, uses AMD's Piledriver architecture on a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The die is dramatically larger: two 315 mm² dies for a total of 2,400 million transistors. Cache is organized differently, with 576 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron targets the server/workstation segment, as reflected in its 12 cores and support for ECC memory.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Intel part runs dual-channel DDR3 with no listed bandwidth figure. The AMD part runs quad-channel DDR3 with a rated 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. PCIe generations also differ: the Intel chip supports Gen 3, while the AMD chip is limited to Gen 2.

The process node disparity is significant. Intel's 22 nm process versus AMD's 32 nm process explains part of the transistor density difference. Intel fits 1,400 million transistors into 177 mm², while AMD needs 630 mm² of silicon to house 2,400 million transistors. This affects power draw: the Intel chip has a 65 W TDP, while the AMD Opteron is rated at 115 W.

The sockets are incompatible. Intel uses Socket 1150, while AMD uses Socket G34. That means platform choice locks buyers into one ecosystem or the other with no upgrade path across brands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Opteron 6344 wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The margin is remarkably consistent, hovering around 15.7% to 16.4% across every test.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 519 against the Intel's 437, a 15.8% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows a similar 16.4% gap, with the Opteron at 73 and the Intel at 61. That the Opteron wins single-core by a larger percentage than multi-core is notable, given the Intel's higher clock speeds.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron leads 2166 to 1821 in multi-core (15.9% ahead) and 305 to 257 in single-core (15.7% ahead). The pattern holds in R23: multi-core 5158 versus 4338, and single-core 728 versus 612, both showing a 15.9% delta.

The Geekbench results are listed only for the Intel chip (3289 multi-core, 1126 single-core), so no direct comparison is possible there. However, the Intel's average benchmark score of 1493 sits nearly exactly on top of the Opteron's 1492, which suggests that in other workloads not covered by the head-to-head list, the Intel chip closes the gap considerably.

The consistent ~16% edge for the Opteron across all Cinebench versions is striking. It indicates that the AMD chip's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general throughput lead in this rendering workload. The Intel chip counters with a much lower TDP and integrated graphics, but in raw Cinebench numbers, it trails at every turn.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the AMD Opteron 6344. It leads by roughly 16% in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, across three different versions of the benchmark. Its 12 cores versus 4 cores gives it a structural advantage in threaded workloads, and its single-core lead shows that the higher-clocked Intel chip (3.60 GHz boost versus 3.20 GHz) cannot overcome the architectural efficiency gap.

However, the Intel Core i5-4590S is not without merit. It draws 65 W versus the Opteron's 115 W, includes integrated HD 4600 graphics, supports PCIe Gen 3, and comes from a newer 22 nm process. The average benchmark scores are essentially identical (1493 versus 1492), meaning that outside the Cinebench suite, the Intel chip is competitive enough to match the Opteron's overall average.

For a desktop user building a low-power system with integrated graphics, the Intel part is the sensible choice. For a server or workstation workload that can use all 12 cores and needs ECC memory, the Opteron is the better pick despite its higher power draw. The Opteron also has a listed launch MSRP of $415, which can be referenced but not analyzed further.

The verdict depends entirely on use case. If the workload is Cinebench-like rendering, the Opteron wins outright. If the workload is mixed and power efficiency matters, the Intel chip's identical average score at nearly half the TDP makes it the practical option.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The Intel Core i5-4590S has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Opteron 6344 has 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the Intel and 2.60 GHz for the AMD; boost clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 3.20 GHz.

TDP is a major differentiator: 65 W for the Intel versus 115 W for the AMD. The sockets are entirely different (Intel Socket 1150 versus AMD Socket G34). The process nodes differ (22 nm versus 32 nm), as do the foundries (Intel versus GlobalFoundries) and transistor counts (1,400 million versus 2,400 million). The Intel die is 177 mm², while the AMD uses two 315 mm² dies.

Cache configurations are not directly comparable. The Intel has per-core L1 and L2 (64 KB and 256 KB respectively) plus 6 MB shared L3. The AMD has 576 KB total L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die. Memory support both use DDR3, but the Intel is dual-channel with no bandwidth figure, while the AMD is quad-channel with 59.7 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD.

The Intel includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics; the AMD has none. PCIe generation differs (Gen 3 versus Gen 2). The Intel is a desktop part, while the AMD is a server/workstation part. The AMD has an end-of-life production status, a launch MSRP of $415, and a part number (OS6344WKTCGHK). The Intel has a release date of 2014-04-30, while the AMD's is 2012-11-04.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Opteron 6344 wins: Every Cinebench test in the head-to-head data. Multi-core rendering is its home turf, with a 15.9% lead in R23, 15.9% in R20, and 15.8% in R15. Single-core tests also go to the Opteron, with margins ranging from 15.7% to 16.4%. ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive server workloads. The quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth provides substantially more memory throughput than the Intel's dual-channel setup. Twelve cores give it a raw thread-count advantage for heavily parallel tasks.

Intel Core i5-4590S wins: Power efficiency is the clear win. At 65 W TDP, it draws 50 W less than the Opteron's 115 W. The integrated HD 4600 graphics eliminates the need for a separate GPU in basic desktop systems. PCIe Gen 3 support offers newer connectivity standards. The 22 nm process node is more advanced than the 32 nm node. The average benchmark score is marginally higher (1493 versus 1492), showing that in non-Cinebench workloads, the Intel chip is essentially equal overall. The newer release date (2014 versus 2012) means a more recent design.

Use-case split: For a rendering workstation where every Cinebench point matters, the Opteron is the choice. For a quiet, low-power desktop that still needs occasional compute capability, the Intel part wins. For a server requiring ECC memory and high memory bandwidth, the Opteron is mandatory. For a mainstream desktop with integrated graphics and lower operating costs, the Intel is superior. The data does not support a single "best" chip; it supports two different tools for two different jobs.