AMD Opteron 6386 SE vs Intel Core i3-9350KF Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350KF records an average benchmark score of 2082, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE records 2038. The Intel part sits at the 46th percentile of all CPUs, slightly above the Opteron's 45th percentile.

Q: In the head-to-head benchmarks, how many wins does each processor have?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins all six recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core i3-9350KF has zero wins in the comparison. The Opteron's margin is consistent, ranging from 9.8% to 10% across the Cinebench suite.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350KF has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has 16 cores and 16 threads. This is a 4x difference in core count, which partially explains the Opteron's lead in multi-threaded workloads.

Q: What memory technologies do these processors support?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350KF supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE supports DDR3 on a quad-channel bus, providing a higher peak bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350KF boosts to 4.60 GHz from a base of 4.00 GHz. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE boosts to 3.50 GHz from a base of 2.80 GHz. The Intel chip has the higher clock frequency by 1.10 GHz at boost.

Q: When were these processors released?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE was released in November 2012. The Intel Core i3-9350KF followed in January 2019. Both are now classified as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-9350KF and AMD Opteron 6386 SE represent fundamentally different design philosophies from different eras. The Intel part is built on Coffee Lake, a 14 nm process manufactured by Intel itself, while the AMD chip uses the Piledriver architecture on a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries.

The Opteron 6386 SE is a dual-die package, with a die size listed as 2x 315 mm² and containing 2,400 million transistors. The Core i3-9350KF uses a single die of 126 mm². This physical difference reflects the server-oriented design of the Opteron, which was built for socket G34 platforms. The Intel chip targets the desktop Socket 1151 market.

Cache organization differs substantially. The Core i3-9350KF provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Opteron 6386 SE lists 768 KB of total L1, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 8 MB of L3 per die. The Opteron's cache hierarchy is module-based rather than core-based, a hallmark of the Piledriver architecture.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Intel chip uses DDR4 with a dual-channel interface and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Opteron uses DDR3 over a quad-channel interface, reaching 51.2 GB/s. The Opteron's wider memory bus gives it a bandwidth advantage despite using older memory technology. PCIe support also differs: the Intel chip provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Opteron offers Gen 2 without a lane count specified.

Both processors lack integrated graphics and both support ECC memory, though this is more typical for the server-class Opteron. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP for the Intel part was $173, while the Opteron launched at $1392, but the database does not use pricing for performance assessment.

The clock strategy is inverted. The Intel chip runs at 4.00 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost, a high-frequency design for a 91 W TDP. The Opteron runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, with a higher 140 W TDP. The Intel part's higher clocks partially compensate for its lower core count, but the benchmark data shows the Opteron still leads in every test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is unambiguous: the AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins every single test, with margins that are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15, the Opteron scores 710 against the Core i3's 640 in multi-core, a 9.9% lead. In single-core R15, the Opteron scores 100 versus 90, a 10% lead.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Opteron wins multi-core with 2959 against 2667, again a 9.9% margin. In single-core, it scores 417 versus 376, a 9.8% lead. These numbers are notable because single-core performance is typically where Intel's higher clock speeds should dominate, yet the Opteron's older architecture still manages to pull ahead.

Cinebench R23 confirms the trend. The Opteron scores 7047 in multi-core against 6352 for the Intel chip, a 9.9% difference. In single-core, the Opteron scores 994 against 896, a 9.9% lead. The consistency of these deltas, all hovering around 10%, suggests a systematic performance advantage rather than workload-specific quirks.

The Intel Core i3-9350KF also has Geekbench results in the database: 4098 multi-core and 1534 single-core. The Opteron does not have Geekbench results recorded, so a comparison there is not possible from the data.

It is importantly the Opteron's wins are not narrow. A 10% lead in single-core tests, where clock speed usually matters most, indicates that the Opteron's architecture delivers higher instructions per clock in these specific Cinebench workloads. The Intel chip's 4.60 GHz boost clock does not translate into a win against the Opteron's 3.50 GHz boost clock.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story, though with a smaller gap. The Intel chip averages 2082 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Opteron averages 2038. This puts the Intel part slightly ahead in the aggregate, but the head-to-head Cinebench suite favors the Opteron. The Intel chip's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at 2094, a 0.6% gap, while the Opteron's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-7700T at 2039, essentially a tie.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. Core count: 4 for Intel versus 16 for AMD. Thread count: 4 versus 16. Base clock: 4.00 GHz versus 2.80 GHz. Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 3.50 GHz. TDP: 91 W versus 140 W.

Process technology: 14 nm Intel versus 32 nm GlobalFoundries. Die size: 126 mm² versus 2x 315 mm². Transistors: not listed for Intel, 2,400 million for AMD.

Cache layout: Intel uses per-core L1 and L2 partitions with a shared L3 of 8 MB. AMD uses a total L1 of 768 KB, per-module L2 of 2 MB, and per-die L3 of 8 MB.

Memory: DDR4 dual-channel at 38.4 GB/s versus DDR3 quad-channel at 51.2 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 3 with 16 lanes versus Gen 2 with no lane count specified.

Socket: Intel Socket 1151 versus AMD Socket G34. Architecture: Coffee Lake versus Piledriver. Codename: Coffee Lake versus Abu Dhabi. Generation: Core i3 (Coffee Lake Refresh) versus Opteron (Abu Dhabi).

Release dates: January 2019 versus November 2012. Both are end-of-life. Both support ECC memory. Neither has integrated graphics or an unlocked multiplier.

The market segments differ: Desktop for Intel, Server/Workstation for AMD. The part numbers also differ: SRF7V for Intel, OS6386YETGGHK for AMD.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear winner in head-to-head testing: the AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins all six Cinebench comparisons. Its margins are consistent at roughly 10% across both single-core and multi-core tests. This is a decisive result, especially given that the Opteron is a 2012 server chip facing a 2019 desktop part.

However, the Intel Core i3-9350KF holds a higher average benchmark score of 2082 versus 2038, and it ranks at the 46th percentile versus the Opteron's 45th. This is a narrow aggregate advantage for Intel, driven by its Geekbench results, which are not available for the Opteron.

The Verdict should be read as follows: for workloads represented by the Cinebench suite, the Opteron is the better performer. For the broader set of benchmarks in the database, the Intel chip edges ahead on average. Neither processor is a clear overall champion; the choice depends on which benchmark set is considered authoritative.

The Opteron's 16 cores versus 4 cores provides a structural advantage in heavily parallel workloads, and the data confirms this with multi-core wins. But its single-core wins are more surprising, given the Intel chip's higher clock speeds. The Opteron's architecture apparently delivers better per-clock performance in Cinebench single-core tests.

The Intel chip's launch MSRP of $173 and the Opteron's launch MSRP of $1392 are recorded, but the database does not factor pricing into performance rankings. The percentile scores indicate both processors sit near the middle of the overall CPU distribution, with the Intel part one percentile point higher.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins in: All Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. Its margins are 9.8% to 10% across the board. This makes it the preferred choice for anyone running Cinebench or similar rendering workloads. The Opteron also offers quad-channel DDR3 memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, which may benefit memory-intensive server tasks. Its 16 cores provide substantial parallel throughput, and its server market segment suggests it was designed for sustained multi-threaded operation.

Intel Core i3-9350KF wins in: The aggregate average benchmark score, with 2082 versus 2038. It also holds the 46th percentile ranking versus the Opteron's 45th. The Intel chip's Geekbench results, 4098 multi-core and 1534 single-core, are recorded and contribute to its higher average. These numbers are not available for the Opteron, so the comparison is incomplete. The Intel chip also has a higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz, a lower TDP of 91 W, a smaller die of 126 mm², and support for DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3.

Use-case split: For users prioritizing the Cinebench rendering suite, the Opteron is the clear winner. For users who rely on Geekbench or who want a more modern platform with DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3, the Intel chip has the edge. The Opteron's older socket and DDR3 memory limit its modern usability, while the Intel chip's desktop platform offers broader compatibility with contemporary components. The data does not support a single universal winner, but it does show that the Opteron's architecture, despite being older and larger, delivers competitive performance in the tested workloads.