AMD Opteron 6348 vs Intel Core i7-7820HQ Comparison

The Intel Core i7-7820HQ and the AMD Opteron 6348 represent two very different interpretations of computing, one a mobile power-sipper and the other a server-room workhorse. Despite their divergent designs, the benchmark data reveals a surprisingly clear-cut performance hierarchy, with the older AMD part consistently outscoring the Intel chip across every single test in the head-to-head comparison. However, the story is far more complex than raw scores, as the data also highlights stark contrasts in efficiency, platform features, and architectural philosophy that define where each processor belongs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the AMD Opteron 6348 wins all six benchmark comparisons. The margins, while consistent, are not overwhelming. In Cinebench R15, the Opteron scores 672 to the Core i7-7820HQ's 613 in the multicore test, a delta of -8.8% from the Intel chip's perspective. The single-core test in R15 shows a similar gap, with 94 points for AMD versus 86 for Intel, a -8.5% difference. This pattern holds steady across the newer Cinebench R20 suite, where the Opteron leads by -8.8% in multicore (2802 vs 2555) and -8.9% in single-core (395 vs 360). The trend continues into Cinebench R23, where the AMD processor posts 6672 against Intel's 6084 in multicore (-8.8%) and 942 versus 858 in single-core (-8.9%).

The consistency of these deltas, all hovering around 8-9%, suggests a fundamental per-clock advantage for the Opteron architecture, or a more efficient implementation of the Cinebench workload. While the Intel chip has a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz compared to the Opteron's 3.40 GHz, it still trails in single-threaded performance. This indicates the AMD Piledriver cores, despite their age, were executing these instructions more effectively on a per-thread basis. It is also worth remembering the Intel chip's average benchmark score of 1940 places it between the Intel Core i3-10300 and the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5, while the Opteron's average of 1930 is nearly identical to the Intel Core i7-1180G7.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark wins for the Intel Core i7-7820HQ, so its advantages must be found outside the raw scoring. The most compelling case for the Intel part is power efficiency. The data lists a TDP of 45 watts for the 7820HQ versus 115 watts for the Opteron 6348. This is a massive difference, indicating the Intel chip generates less than half the heat of the AMD processor. This makes the i7-7820HQ viable for thin-and-light laptops, as the data shows it belongs to the "Mobile" market segment with an integrated Intel HD Graphics 630 GPU. The Opteron, in contrast, has no integrated graphics and is designated for "Server/Workstation" use, where power draw is less of a constraint.

The AMD Opteron 6348, however, wins in every measured performance category and offers features that are critical for its intended role. It supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Intel chip, which is essential for data integrity in server environments. The Opteron also offers a quad-channel memory bus with a listed bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Intel part is limited to dual-channel. While memory bandwidth figures are not provided for the Intel chip, the architectural difference is clear. The 12 physical cores and 12 threads of the Opteron also provide a raw core-count advantage over the 4 cores and 8 threads of the Intel part, which is relevant for heavily parallelized server workloads.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from fundamentally different design schools. The Intel Core i7-7820HQ is built on a 14 nm process node by Intel, while the AMD Opteron 6348 uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This process advantage is a major reason for the Intel chip's vastly lower TDP. The Intel die size is 126 mm², whereas the AMD part is composed of two dies, each measuring 315 mm², housing a total of 2,400 million transistors. The Intel chip's cache layout is per-core, with 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus an 8 MB shared L3. The Opteron uses a module-based design, with 2 MB of L2 per module and 8 MB of L3 per die, along with a total of 576 KB of L1 cache.

The Intel architecture is Kaby Lake-H, a mainstream mobile design with a dual-channel memory controller supporting DDR3 and DDR4. Its PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD Opteron, codenamed Abu Dhabi, is part of the Piledriver architecture, supporting only DDR3 memory but over a quad-channel bus. Its PCIe support is limited to Gen 2. The socket types are also completely incompatible: Intel BGA 1440 for the 7820HQ and AMD Socket G34 for the Opteron. The Intel part also boasts a higher boost clock (3.90 GHz) and base clock (2.90 GHz) compared to the Opteron's 3.40 GHz boost and 2.80 GHz base, yet still loses in performance, underscoring the architectural efficiency difference.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the choice between these two processors hinges entirely on the use case. If the requirement is maximum multi-threaded performance for server or workstation tasks where power consumption is secondary and ECC memory is a necessity, the AMD Opteron 6348 is the clear winner. It outperforms the Intel chip in every benchmark, offers ECC support, and provides a wider memory bus. Its higher TDP is a non-issue in a rack-mounted chassis.

Conversely, the Intel Core i7-7820HQ is the only logical choice for mobile computing. Its 45-watt TDP is the data-supported indicator that it can be cooled in a laptop chassis, and its integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU. While it loses in every performance comparison, it is not a slow processor; its average benchmark score is within a fraction of a percent of the Opteron's. The data simply shows that for a user who needs a laptop, the Opteron is not an option, and the i7-7820HQ is a capable, if not class-leading, mobile part. For any performance-critical server role, the Opteron is the superior part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 scores 942, while the Intel Core i7-7820HQ scores 858. The Opteron leads by a margin of -8.9% from the Intel chip's perspective.

Q: Does the AMD Opteron 6348 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the data lists "eccMemory: true" for the AMD Opteron 6348. The Intel Core i7-7820HQ does not have ECC support.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The Intel Core i7-7820HQ has a TDP of 45 watts, while the AMD Opteron 6348 has a TDP of 115 watts.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6348 has 12 physical cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core i7-7820HQ has 4 physical cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs for these two processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-7820HQ has a launch MSRP of $378, and the AMD Opteron 6348 has a launch MSRP of $575.

Q: Do both processors use the same memory architecture?

A: No. The Intel chip uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the AMD Opteron uses a quad-channel bus with a listed bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-7820HQ | AMD Opteron 6348 |

|:--- |:--- |:--- |

| Cores | 4 | 12 |

| Threads | 8 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 115 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | AMD Socket G34 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Piledriver |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 2x 315 mm² |

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

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 |

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

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 630 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Launch MSRP | $378 | $575 |