AMD Opteron 6380 vs Intel Core i7-5850HQ Comparison

The AMD Opteron 6380 and Intel Core i7-5850HQ represent two very different design philosophies from roughly the same era, one aimed at high-core-count server workloads and the other at power-efficient mobile desktop performance. The benchmark data shows a consistent, if narrow, victory for the Intel part across every Cinebench test recorded, despite the Opteron offering four times the physical cores. The Core i7-5850HQ wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 2.4% to 2.7%, while its average benchmark score of 1688 sits measurably above the Opteron’s 1643. This outcome is a direct illustration of how architectural efficiency, clock speed, and single-thread performance can outweigh raw core counts in synthetic rendering workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results are unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-5850HQ takes every single test, but the wins are small. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel scores 588 against the AMD’s 572, a 2.7% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 82 versus 80, a 2.4% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 2451 for Intel versus 2386 for AMD, again a 2.7% gap, while single-core is 345 against 336, a 2.6% difference. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: multicore 5836 for Intel versus 5683 for AMD (2.6% ahead), and single-core 823 versus 802 (2.6% ahead). No test flips in favor of the Opteron. The margins are tight, but they are consistent across every version of the benchmark, indicating a stable performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

What makes this notable is the core count disparity. The Opteron packs 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i7-5850HQ has only 4 cores and 8 threads. In a purely parallel workload, one would expect the 16-core part to dominate. Yet the data shows the opposite: the 4-core Intel chip outperforms the 16-core AMD chip in multi-threaded Cinebench runs by roughly 2.6% to 2.7%. This suggests that the Opteron’s Piledriver cores, running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 3.40 GHz, cannot compensate for the per-core inefficiency relative to Broadwell. The Intel part’s base clock of 2.70 GHz and boost of 3.60 GHz, combined with a much newer 14 nm process, delivers higher instructions per clock, which more than offsets the lack of cores.

The average benchmark score further contextualizes the gap. The Opteron’s average is 1643, placing it in the 40th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core i7-5850HQ’s average is 1688, also in the 40th percentile, but the raw score difference is 45 points, about 2.7% higher. The nearest rivals for the Opteron include the Intel Core i7-5700HQ with an average score of 1645 (a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G at 1640 (0.2% difference). For the Intel part, its closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-3770K at 1688, a 0% difference, and the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H at 1690, which is 0.1% faster. This shows both chips sit in a crowded mid-range performance band, but the Intel chip sits at the higher edge of that band.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are generations apart in design. The Opteron 6380 uses AMD’s Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is a dual-die design, with each die measuring 315 mm², totaling 630 mm², and containing 2,400 million transistors. The Intel Core i7-5850HQ uses Intel’s Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-H, on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. Its die size is 182 mm², significantly smaller, and the transistor count is not recorded in the database. The process node difference alone, 32 nm versus 14 nm, explains much of the efficiency gap: the Intel part achieves higher clock speeds (3.60 GHz boost versus 3.40 GHz boost) while consuming far less power.

Cache configurations also diverge sharply. The Opteron has 768 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache per module (with 16 cores arranged in modules, this totals 16 MB of L2), and 8 MB of L3 cache per die, so 16 MB total across two dies. The Core i7-5850HQ has 64 KB of L1 cache per core (256 KB total for 4 cores), 256 KB of L2 per core (1 MB total), and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron’s larger cache hierarchy is designed for server workloads with many threads accessing shared data, but the Broadwell part’s smaller, faster cache per core appears more effective for the Cinebench rendering tasks, which are sensitive to per-thread memory latency.

Memory support further separates them. The Opteron supports DDR3 over a quad-channel memory bus, delivering a peak bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory, which is essential for server reliability. The Core i7-5850HQ also uses DDR3 but over a dual-channel bus, with a peak bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, less than half the Opteron’s throughput, and it does not support ECC memory. Despite this bandwidth disadvantage, the Intel chip wins the benchmarks, indicating that memory bandwidth is not the limiting factor in these specific tests. The Opteron also uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, a difference that matters for expansion in a server context but not for the Cinebench workloads measured.

The Intel part includes integrated graphics, specifically Iris Pro Graphics 6200, while the Opteron has no integrated graphics, a typical distinction between a server processor and a mobile desktop part. The Opteron’s socket is AMD Socket G34, designed for dual-socket server boards, whereas the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1364, a soldered mobile socket. The Opteron’s market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, while the Intel part is listed as Desktop, despite its BGA packaging. Both are end-of-life products, but the Opteron was released in November 2012, while the Core i7-5850HQ was released in June 2015, nearly three years later.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Opteron 6380 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i7-5850HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Opteron offers four times the physical cores, but the Intel part still wins all multi-threaded Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i7-5850HQ scores 5836, while the AMD Opteron 6380 scores 5683. This gives the Intel part a 2.6% advantage, which is the same margin seen in the single-core R23 test (823 versus 802).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Opteron 6380 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-5850HQ does not. This is consistent with the Opteron’s server-oriented design, while the Intel part targets desktop use.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i7-5850HQ has an average benchmark score of 1688, while the AMD Opteron 6380 has an average of 1643. The Intel part is about 2.7% higher, and both sit in the 40th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: What process nodes are used for each processor?

A: The AMD Opteron 6380 uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the Intel Core i7-5850HQ uses a 14 nm process from Intel. The smaller process node is a key factor in the Intel part’s higher clock speeds and lower power consumption.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-5850HQ has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Opteron 6380’s boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The base clocks are 2.70 GHz for Intel and 2.50 GHz for AMD.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The AMD Opteron 6380 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i7-5850HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for AMD and 2.70 GHz for Intel, with boost clocks of 3.40 GHz versus 3.60 GHz, respectively. Thermal design power is drastically different: the Opteron draws 115 watts, while the Intel part draws only 47 watts, a 68-watt gap that highlights the efficiency of the 14 nm Broadwell design.

Sockets are incompatible: the Opteron uses AMD Socket G34, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1364. The architecture is Piledriver versus Broadwell, with codenames Abu Dhabi and Broadwell-H, respectively. Process nodes are 32 nm versus 14 nm, and the die sizes are 2x 315 mm² versus 182 mm². The Opteron has 2,400 million transistors, while the Intel part’s transistor count is not listed in the database. Cache layouts differ: the Opteron has 768 KB L1, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die, while the Intel part has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Opteron runs quad-channel with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and supports ECC, while the Intel part runs dual-channel with 29.9 GB/s and no ECC. The Opteron uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics are absent on the Opteron but present on the Intel part as Iris Pro Graphics 6200. The market segment is Server/Workstation for AMD and Desktop for Intel. Release dates are November 2012 for AMD and June 2015 for Intel. The launch MSRP is $1088 for the Opteron and $434 for the Core i7-5850HQ. Both are end-of-life, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Core i7-5850HQ is the clear winner in terms of raw performance. It outperforms the AMD Opteron 6380 in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, across R15, R20, and R23. The margins are consistent, between 2.4% and 2.7%, and the average benchmark score reflects this with a 45-point advantage. The Intel part also achieves this with dramatically lower power consumption, 47 watts versus 115 watts, and a smaller die, 182 mm² versus 630 mm², showing superior architectural efficiency.

However, the verdict is not simply about speed. The Opteron 6380 is a server processor with 16 cores, ECC memory support, quad-channel memory bandwidth, and a socket designed for multi-socket configurations. The Core i7-5850HQ is a mobile desktop part with integrated graphics and no ECC support. For a user building a workstation that requires error-correcting memory or needs to scale beyond a single socket, the Opteron’s feature set is essential, despite its slower performance in the measured benchmarks. For any application that relies purely on single-thread or lightly threaded performance, the Intel part is the better choice.

The percentile data places both in the 40th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are neither top-tier nor bottom-tier. The Opteron’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-5700HQ, which is 0.1% faster, while the Core i7-5850HQ’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-3770K, which is exactly equal in average score. This suggests that the Opteron is comparable to a previous-generation Intel quad-core, while the Core i7-5850HQ matches a well-regarded desktop quad-core. The data does not support any scenario where the Opteron wins a benchmark, so the Intel part is the performance pick.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-5850HQ wins in every benchmark category recorded, including all multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests. Its advantage is narrow but consistent, making it the better choice for rendering workloads, especially those that rely on per-core speed and modern instruction efficiency. Its 47 watt TDP and integrated Iris Pro Graphics 6200 make it suitable for compact desktop systems where power draw and space are constraints. The dual-channel memory bus, while slower on paper, does not hinder its performance in the measured tests.

The AMD Opteron 6380 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data, but it wins on features that matter in a server context. Its 16 cores provide a foundation for heavily threaded server applications that are not captured by Cinebench, and its ECC memory support and quad-channel memory bandwidth, 59.7 GB/s, are critical for data integrity and high-throughput workloads. The Socket G34 interface allows for multi-socket configurations, which can multiply core counts further, something the BGA 1364 Intel part cannot do. The Opteron’s larger L3 cache and per-module L2 design are aimed at server workloads with many concurrent threads.

In practical terms, the Intel part is the pick for a single-socket desktop system where performance per watt and per-core speed are priorities. The Opteron is the pick for a server or workstation where ECC memory, multi-socket scalability, and a much higher memory bandwidth are non-negotiable, and where the 2.6% benchmark deficit is irrelevant compared to the feature advantages. The data shows a narrow performance victory for Intel, but the Opteron’s value lies outside the Cinebench suite.