AMD Opteron 6344 vs Intel Core i7-4712HQ Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i7-4712HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron offers triple the physical core count and 50% more threads.

Q: How do the two compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 has an average benchmark score of 1492, placing it in the 38th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i7-4712HQ has an average score of 1436, placing it in the 37th percentile. The Opteron is slightly ahead overall.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i7-4712HQ includes integrated graphics, specifically the Intel HD 4600. The AMD Opteron 6344 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server/workstation part.

Q: What memory configurations do these processors support?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 supports quad-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Intel Core i7-4712HQ supports dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Opteron has more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-4712HQ does not. This makes the Opteron suitable for error-sensitive server workloads.

Q: What are the socket types for each processor?

A: The AMD Opteron 6344 uses AMD Socket G34, while the Intel Core i7-4712HQ uses Intel BGA 1364. The BGA socket indicates the Intel part is soldered to the motherboard.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Opteron 6344 and Intel Core i7-4712HQ represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Opteron is built on AMD's Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, using a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It belongs to the Opteron 6000 series and was released in 2012. The Intel part uses the Haswell architecture, also its codename, fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process, and was released in 2014.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a clear story. The Opteron 6344 packs 2,400 million transistors across a dual-die design with each die measuring 315 mm², totaling 630 mm². The Intel Core i7-4712HQ has 1,400 million transistors on a single 177 mm² die. The AMD chip is physically much larger and uses more transistors, but the Intel part achieves higher density thanks to the smaller 22 nm process.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Opteron 6344 has 576 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache per module, and 8 MB of L3 cache per die. The Intel Core i7-4712HQ has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron's modular design provides significantly more total cache, though the Intel design shares L3 across all cores.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The Opteron uses quad-channel DDR3 with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. ECC memory support exists only on the AMD chip, reflecting its server heritage. PCIe support also differs: the Opteron has PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel part has PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The power envelope separates these parts dramatically. The Opteron 6344 has a TDP of 115 watts, while the Intel Core i7-4712HQ has a TDP of just 37 watts. The Intel part is designed for mobile platforms, hence the BGA 1364 socket and low power consumption. The Opteron targets server/workstation deployments where power is less constrained.

Both processors have locked multipliers. The Opteron 6344 has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-4712HQ has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The Intel chip boosts slightly higher despite having a lower base clock.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6344 wins in every recorded benchmark comparison against the Intel Core i7-4712HQ. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the Opteron takes the lead with consistent margins. This makes the Opteron the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads, which is expected given its 12 cores versus 4 cores.

The Opteron's advantage also extends to single-core performance, which is more surprising. Despite the Intel chip's higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz versus 3.20 GHz, the Opteron still manages to outperform it in every single-core Cinebench test. This suggests the Piledriver architecture holds up well in these specific workloads.

The Intel Core i7-4712HQ wins in efficiency by a wide margin. With a TDP of 37 watts compared to 115 watts, it delivers competitive performance at roughly one-third the power draw. For mobile workstations or compact systems where heat and battery life matter, the Intel part is the practical choice.

The Intel chip also wins on platform features. It includes integrated graphics, which the Opteron lacks entirely, and supports PCIe Gen 3. The Opteron is limited to PCIe Gen 2. For systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU, the Intel part is the only option between the two.

The Opteron wins on memory bandwidth and capacity for server workloads. Its quad-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support make it suitable for database servers, virtualization hosts, and other memory-intensive enterprise applications. The Intel part's dual-channel 25.6 GB/s bandwidth and lack of ECC limit it to consumer or light professional use.

The Intel Core i7-4712HQ wins on its nearest rival comparisons. Its average score of 1436 sits within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 3 2200GE. The Opteron's average score of 1492 sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core i5-7500T and within 0.5% of the Intel Core i3-8100T. Both processors land in similar competitive territory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Opteron 6344 | Intel Core i7-4712HQ |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 4 |

| Threads | 12 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 115 W | 37 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket G34 | Intel BGA 1364 |

| Architecture | Piledriver | Haswell |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | 2,400 million | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | 2x 315 mm² | 177 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per module) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (per die) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 4600 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2012-11-04 | 2014-03-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $415 | $378 |

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Opteron 6344 has three times the cores, more cache, higher memory bandwidth, and ECC support. The Intel Core i7-4712HQ has a smaller process node, lower TDP, integrated graphics, and PCIe Gen 3 support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Opteron 6344 wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The margins are remarkably consistent across the board, with every delta falling between 14.1% and 14.3%.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Opteron scores 519 against the Intel Core i7-4712HQ's 454, a 14.3% advantage. The single-core test shows the Opteron at 73 versus 64, a 14.1% lead. This pattern holds in Cinebench R20, where the Opteron scores 2166 multicore and 305 single-core, compared to 1895 and 267 for the Intel part, representing 14.3% and 14.2% margins respectively.

Cinebench R23 follows the same trend. The Opteron 6344 scores 5158 multicore and 728 single-core, while the Intel Core i7-4712HQ scores 4512 and 637. The delta is 14.3% in both tests.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across three generations of Cinebench tests and both single and multi-threaded workloads, the Opteron maintains nearly identical advantages. This indicates the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

For context, the Opteron's average benchmark score of 1492 places it 0.4% behind the Intel Core i7-3770S and 0.5% behind the Intel Core i3-8100T, but 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i5-7500T. The Intel Core i7-4712HQ's average score of 1436 places it 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 2200GE, but 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i7-2600K.

The Opteron also holds a small edge in overall percentile ranking. It sits in the 38th percentile of all CPUs, one point above the Intel part's 37th percentile.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Opteron 6344 outperforms the Intel Core i7-4712HQ in every recorded benchmark, with consistent 14% margins across all Cinebench tests. For pure compute performance, the Opteron is the superior processor.

Choose the AMD Opteron 6344 if you need maximum multi-threaded throughput. Its 12 cores, 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, and ECC support make it suitable for server and workstation deployments. The 115-watt TDP is acceptable in a chassis designed for enterprise hardware. The Opteron also wins in single-core tests, so there is no workload category in the recorded data where the Intel part comes out ahead.

Choose the Intel Core i7-4712HQ if you are constrained by power and space. The 37-watt TDP is a fraction of the Opteron's 115-watt draw, making it viable for laptops and compact mobile workstations. The integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios. The BGA 1364 socket means it is soldered to the motherboard, which is standard for mobile platforms.

The Intel part also offers PCIe Gen 3 support, which the Opteron lacks with its Gen 2 implementation. For workloads that benefit from modern PCIe bandwidth, the Intel platform has the advantage.

Both processors are end-of-life products. The Opteron 6344 was released in 2012 with a launch MSRP of $415, while the Intel Core i7-4712HQ was released in 2014 with a launch MSRP of $378. The Opteron belongs to the server-class Opteron 6000 series, while the Intel part is a mobile Core i7 from the Haswell generation.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Opteron 6344 wins on performance across the board. The Intel Core i7-4712HQ wins on efficiency, integrated graphics, and modern PCIe support. The right choice depends entirely on whether raw compute performance or platform efficiency matters more for the intended use case. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the Intel part outperforms the Opteron in processing power.