CPU Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6348 and Intel Core i7-6700T represent two fundamentally different approaches to computing, and the benchmark data is unambiguous about the outcome. The Opteron 6348 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the Cinebench suite, taking all six tests with a consistent margin of roughly 12%. Its average benchmark score of 1930 slightly edges out the Core i7-6700T’s 1918, and both processors sit at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. The verdict is straightforward: the Opteron 6348 is the superior choice for multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads alike, based purely on the measured results. The Core i7-6700T, however, offers a dramatically lower thermal envelope and integrated graphics, making it the only rational pick for compact or power-constrained systems.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear winner: the AMD Opteron 6348. It outperforms the Intel Core i7-6700T in every Cinebench test, with deltas ranging from 11.9% to 12.3%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Opteron scores 6672 against the Core i7’s 5943, a 12.3% advantage. Single-core results tell the same story: 942 versus 839 in R23, again a 12.3% lead. Six wins out of six head-to-head tests means there is no workload category in this data where the Intel chip comes out ahead. The Opteron’s 12 cores and 12 threads provide a structural advantage that the Core i7’s 4 cores and 8 threads cannot overcome, even with the Intel part’s higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz.

The Core i7-6700T is not without merit, but its merits lie outside raw performance. Its TDP is 35 watts, compared to the Opteron’s 115 watts, and it integrates HD Graphics 530, which the Opteron lacks entirely. For a desktop build where power draw and integrated graphics are priorities, the Core i7-6700T is the only viable option. But for anyone prioritizing computational throughput, the Opteron 6348 is the definitive choice. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 1930 for the Opteron versus 1918 for the Core i7, a gap that places the AMD part alongside rivals like the Intel Core i7-1180G7 (1930, 0% delta) and the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 (1925, 0.3% delta), while the Intel part matches the AMD Ryzen 3 7320U (1916, 0.1% delta).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD Opteron 6348 uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is a server/workstation part with 12 cores and 12 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. Its cache hierarchy is split across two dies, each with 8 MB of L3 cache, plus 2 MB of L2 per module and 576 KB of L1 total. The die size is listed as 2x 315 mm², and the transistor count is 2,400 million. The Intel Core i7-6700T uses the Skylake architecture, also codenamed Skylake, built on a 14 nm process at Intel. It is a desktop part with 4 cores and 8 threads, enabled by Hyper-Threading. Its cache is 8 MB of shared L3, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 64 KB of L1 per core.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Opteron supports DDR3 in a quad-channel configuration, yielding a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The Core i7 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 but only in a dual-channel configuration, capping bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s, and it lacks ECC support. The Opteron uses AMD Socket G34 and PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i7 uses Intel Socket 1151 and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Opteron has no integrated graphics; the Core i7 includes HD Graphics 530. The process node difference, 32 nm versus 14 nm, explains the massive TDP gap: 115 watts for the Opteron versus 35 watts for the Core i7. The Opteron also launched on 2012-11-04, while the Core i7 launched on 2015-08-31, a gap of nearly three years.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i7-6700T has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Does the Core i7-6700T have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes HD Graphics 530. The AMD Opteron 6348 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Opteron 6348 provides 59.7 GB/s via quad-channel DDR3, while the Core i7-6700T provides 34.1 GB/s via dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core i7-6700T has a TDP of 35 watts, far lower than the AMD Opteron 6348’s 115 watts.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Opteron 6348 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-6700T does not.

Q: In Cinebench R20 multicore, what is the score gap?

A: The Opteron 6348 scores 2802, while the Core i7-6700T scores 2496, a 12.3% difference in favor of the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field. The Opteron 6348 has 12 cores and 12 threads; the Core i7-6700T has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are identical at 2.80 GHz, but boost clocks differ: 3.40 GHz for the Opteron versus 3.60 GHz for the Core i7. TDP is a major divergence: 115 watts versus 35 watts. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket G34 versus Intel Socket 1151. The process node is 32 nm (GlobalFoundries) versus 14 nm (Intel). The Opteron’s cache layout is 576 KB L1, 2 MB per module L2, and 8 MB per die L3; the Core i7 uses 64 KB per core L1, 256 KB per core L2, and 8 MB shared L3. Memory support: DDR3 quad-channel with ECC versus DDR3/DDR4 dual-channel without ECC. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 2 versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Core i7 has integrated graphics; the Opteron does not. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Release dates: 2012-11-04 versus 2015-08-31. Launch MSRP: the Opteron was $575, and the Core i7 was $303.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent, with the AMD Opteron 6348 winning every test by a narrow but decisive margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Opteron scores 672 against the Core i7’s 599, a 12.2% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 94 versus 84, an 11.9% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 2802 for the Opteron versus 2496 for the Core i7, a 12.3% delta, and single-core is 395 versus 352, a 12.2% delta. The largest margins appear in Cinebench R23: multicore 6672 versus 5943 (12.3%) and single-core 942 versus 839 (12.3%). Notably, the Core i7-6700T also has Geekbench scores (3906 multicore, 1128 single-core), but the Opteron 6348 lacks Geekbench data in this comparison, so those tests cannot be included in the head-to-head tally. The wins column is 6-0 in favor of the Opteron, with zero losses.

These margins are not trivial. A consistent 12% advantage across all Cinebench versions indicates a structural performance lead, not a test-specific anomaly. The Opteron’s higher core count drives the multicore wins, while its single-core advantage, despite a lower boost clock, suggests the Piledriver architecture delivers more work per clock in these specific workloads. The Core i7’s higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz does not translate into a win anywhere.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6348 wins in every measurable performance category in this data set. Its six head-to-head victories cover both multicore and single-core workloads across three Cinebench versions. This makes it the clear pick for any application that relies on sustained CPU throughput, such as server-side processing, workstation rendering, or heavily threaded compute tasks. Its 12-core configuration and quad-channel memory with ECC support target exactly those scenarios. The 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly double the Core i7’s 34.1 GB/s, which matters for memory-bound workloads.

The Intel Core i7-6700T wins in no benchmark, but it wins in platform characteristics. Its 35-watt TDP is less than a third of the Opteron’s 115 watts, making it suitable for passively cooled or small-form-factor systems. The integrated HD Graphics 530 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic desktop tasks. The dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 support offers memory flexibility, and the 14 nm process provides a more modern foundation. For a low-power desktop or an HTPC-style build, the Core i7-6700T is the sensible choice. For any workload where raw compute is the goal, the data unambiguously favors the AMD Opteron 6348. The choice is not about performance, it is about power, size, and the need for integrated graphics.