AMD Opteron 6380 vs Intel Core i7-4810MQ Comparison

# Intel Core i7-4810MQ vs AMD Opteron 6380

The AMD Opteron 6380 wins every head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, but the margins are surprisingly narrow for a 16-core server processor facing a 4-core mobile chip. Across six Cinebench tests, the Opteron leads by roughly 9.5–10% in every discipline, yet both processors land at the 40th percentile of all CPUs and post near-identical average benchmark scores (1651 for the Intel, 1643 for the AMD). This is a matchup where architectural philosophy matters more than raw score differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Opteron 6380 takes all six Cinebench comparisons, but the pattern is consistent rather than overwhelming. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD scores 572 against Intel's 516, a 9.8% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the same story: 80 versus 72, a 10% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Opteron posts 2386 multicore and 336 single-core, while the i7-4810MQ manages 2154 and 304 respectively — deltas of 9.7% and 9.5%. The R23 results mirror this exactly: 5683 versus 5129 multicore (9.7% ahead) and 802 versus 724 single-core (9.7% ahead).

What stands out is the uniformity of the margin. Despite having four times the core count, the Opteron's lead never exceeds 10%, and in single-threaded tests it holds only a 9.7–10% edge. The i7-4810MQ's higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, clearly helps it keep pace in lightly threaded workloads. The average benchmark scores tell the same tale: the Intel chip sits at 1651, the AMD at 1643 — a difference of less than 0.5%. Intel's nearest rival comparison shows the i7-4810MQ within 0.4% of the Core i7-5700HQ and within 0.3% of the Core i5-4670K, while the Opteron's closest competitor is the same i7-5700HQ at just 0.1% behind.

The data does not support a narrative of the Opteron crushing the i7-4810MQ. It wins, but it wins narrowly, and the Intel part's single-core performance is remarkably competitive given its mobile pedigree.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental design gap is enormous. The Intel Core i7-4810MQ is a Haswell mobile processor built on Intel's 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors in a 177 mm² die. It packs 4 cores with 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, a 6 MB shared L3 cache, and per-core L1/L2 caches of 64 KB and 256 KB respectively. The AMD Opteron 6380, codenamed Abu Dhabi, is a Piledriver server part from the Opteron 6000 series, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on 32 nm with 2,400 million transistors spread across two 315 mm² dies. It offers 16 cores but only 16 threads — no simultaneous multithreading. Its cache hierarchy is organized differently: 768 KB of L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Intel chip uses dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The Opteron runs quad-channel DDR3, delivering 59.7 GB/s — more than double the bandwidth — and supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server workloads. The i7-4810MQ includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, while the Opteron has none. PCIe connectivity also differs: Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while AMD offers only Gen 2.

The process node gap matters: Intel's 22 nm versus AMD's 32 nm explains part of the transistor and die size differences. The Opteron uses roughly 71% more transistors across a much larger combined die area, yet it still only manages a single-digit percentage performance lead. The TDP figures reflect the gulf in power envelope: 47 watts for the mobile Intel part versus 115 watts for the server AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6380 wins every benchmark in this comparison, so the practical question is where its lead is meaningful. In multicore workloads, the Opteron's 16 physical cores provide a steady 9.7–9.8% advantage across R15, R20, and R23. For server-style parallel rendering or compute tasks, that consistent edge, combined with quad-channel memory bandwidth and ECC support, makes it the more capable processor for sustained throughput. The Opteron's single-core wins of 9.5–10% are also notable — despite lower clock speeds, the Piledriver architecture manages to outpace the Haswell part in every Cinebench test.

The Intel Core i7-4810MQ's wins are more situational. It does not win any raw benchmark, but it achieves near-parity at a fraction of the power draw — 47 watts versus 115 watts. In any thermally constrained or battery-powered scenario, the i7-4810MQ delivers roughly 90% of the Opteron's performance using less than half the power. Its integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics mean a system built around it needs no discrete GPU for basic display output, and its Gen 3 PCIe with 16 lanes offers faster peripheral bandwidth than the Opteron's Gen 2. For mobile workstations or compact systems, the i7-4810MQ is the only realistic choice; the Opteron's server socket, 115-watt TDP, and lack of integrated graphics preclude such use cases entirely.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification:

• Cores: 4 (Intel) vs 16 (AMD)
• Threads: 8 (Intel) vs 16 (AMD)
• Base clock: 2.80 GHz (Intel) vs 2.50 GHz (AMD)
• Boost clock: 3.80 GHz (Intel) vs 3.40 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 47 W (Intel) vs 115 W (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket G3 (Intel) vs AMD Socket G34 (AMD)
• Process node: 22 nm (Intel) vs 32 nm (AMD)
• Transistors: 1,400 million (Intel) vs 2,400 million (AMD)
• Die size: 177 mm² (Intel) vs 2x 315 mm² (AMD)
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core (Intel) vs 768 KB total (AMD)
• L2 cache: 256 KB per core (Intel) vs 2 MB per module (AMD)
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared (Intel) vs 8 MB per die (AMD)
• Memory bus: Dual-channel (Intel) vs Quad-channel (AMD)
• Memory bandwidth: 25.6 GB/s (Intel) vs 59.7 GB/s (AMD)
• ECC memory: No (Intel) vs Yes (AMD)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 lanes (Intel) vs Gen 2 (AMD)
• Integrated graphics: Intel HD 4600 (Intel) vs None (AMD)
• Market segment: Mobile (Intel) vs Server/Workstation (AMD)
• Release date: 2014-01-19 (Intel) vs 2012-11-04 (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: $378 (Intel) vs $1088 (AMD)

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6380 has 16 cores, compared to 4 cores on the Intel Core i7-4810MQ. However, the Intel chip supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the AMD chip has 16 threads with no SMT.

Q: How much faster is the Opteron in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Opteron scores 5683 versus 5129 for the i7-4810MQ, a 9.7% advantage. The R20 and R15 multicore tests show similar margins of 9.7% and 9.8% respectively.

Q: Does the Intel chip have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i7-4810MQ includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The AMD Opteron 6380 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Opteron 6380 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-4810MQ does not offer ECC support.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Opteron 6380 provides 59.7 GB/s via quad-channel DDR3, while the i7-4810MQ delivers 25.6 GB/s through dual-channel DDR3. The AMD part has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i7-4810MQ has an average benchmark score of 1651, while the AMD Opteron 6380 scores 1643. The difference is less than 0.5%, placing both at the 40th percentile of all CPUs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Opteron 6380 wins every Cinebench test, from single-core R15 (80 versus 72) to multicore R23 (5683 versus 5129). Yet the margins are so consistent and so narrow — never exceeding 10% — that the performance difference is almost incidental compared to the architectural gulf. The Opteron's 16 cores, quad-channel memory, ECC support, and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth make it the correct choice for server workloads where data integrity and memory throughput are paramount. Its launch MSRP of $1088 reflects that server positioning.

The Intel Core i7-4810MQ, with a launch MSRP of $378, offers a different value proposition entirely. It delivers roughly 90% of the Opteron's performance at 47 watts, includes integrated graphics, fits a mobile socket, and supports Gen 3 PCIe. For any portable or power-constrained application, the i7-4810MQ is not just preferable — it is the only viable option. The data shows two processors that achieve similar benchmark outcomes through radically different means: one maximizes parallelism and memory bandwidth, the other maximizes efficiency and integration. Choose the Opteron for rack-mounted throughput and ECC reliability; choose the i7-4810MQ for mobile computing where the 115-watt TDP of the AMD part is simply not an option.