AMD Opteron 6386 SE vs Intel Core i5-1145GRE Comparison

The Intel Core i5-1145GRE and AMD Opteron 6386 SE occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, yet benchmark data places them in a remarkably tight competition. Across every Cinebench test recorded, the Opteron edges out the Core i5 by margins that never exceed 1%. This analysis examines the benchmark results, architectural divergence, and practical implications of this unusual pairing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Opteron 6386 SE, though the margins are almost negligible. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Opteron scores 710 against the Intel’s 705, a delta of -0.7% from the Intel perspective. Single-core R15 results are similarly close: 100 versus 99, a 1% gap. This pattern persists across newer workloads. The R20 multi-core test shows 2959 for AMD versus 2940 for Intel (-0.6%), while single-core R20 lands at 417 versus 414 (-0.7%). The R23 suite repeats the trend with multi-core scores of 7047 and 7001 (-0.7%) and single-core scores of 994 and 988 (-0.6%).

What these numbers demonstrate is that raw performance parity exists despite a 12-year gap in release dates. The Opteron’s advantage is consistent but never decisive. The largest delta is a 1% single-core win in R15; the smallest is 0.6% in R20 multi-core and R23 single-core. A senior engineer would note that these differences fall well within typical run-to-run variance for benchmark software, meaning the two processors are effectively tied in Cinebench workloads. The average benchmark scores confirm this: the Opteron sits at 2038, while the Intel reaches 2025, a difference of only 0.6%.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is vast. Intel’s Core i5-1145GRE uses the Tiger Lake-U architecture built on a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry. It packs 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 1500.00 MHz boosting to 4.10 GHz. The die measures 144 mm². Cache hierarchy follows a per-core design: 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Memory support includes DDR4 and LPDDR4X over a dual-channel bus, with ECC capability. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units provides on-die graphics, and PCIe Gen 4 with 4 CPU lanes handles expansion. This is a mobile-focused part with a 28 W TDP.

AMD’s Opteron 6386 SE comes from the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Abu Dhabi, manufactured on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is a server/workstation chip with 16 cores and 16 threads, running at a 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The package consists of two dies, each measuring 315 mm², totaling 2,400 million transistors. Cache is organized differently: 768 KB L1 total, 2 MB L2 per module, and 8 MB L3 per die. Memory support is DDR3 over a quad-channel bus with a rated bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and ECC is supported. There is no integrated graphics. PCIe is Gen 2. The TDP is 140 W, and the socket is AMD Socket G34.

The core-count disparity is stark: 16 physical cores versus 4 cores with Hyper-Threading. Yet Piledriver’s module design shares resources between pairs of cores, which explains why the Opteron does not dominate multi-threaded Cinebench runs. The Intel part’s newer architecture, with its 10 nm process and faster boost clock, compensates for having a quarter of the physical cores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 6386 SE wins every benchmark in the dataset, but the practical interpretation requires nuance. In all measured Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core—the Opteron holds a lead between 0.6% and 1%. This makes it the nominal winner for rendering workloads that stress all available cores, as well as for lightly threaded tasks that rely on single-core speed. The consistency of the results suggests the Opteron has a slight edge in sustained throughput, which may stem from its 16 physical cores and higher base clock of 2.80 GHz.

The Intel Core i5-1145GRE, despite losing every head-to-head comparison, demonstrates the efficiency of modern architecture. Its 4.10 GHz boost clock is substantially higher than the Opteron’s 3.50 GHz, and the 10 nm process allows for a 28 W TDP versus the Opteron’s 140 W. For scenarios where power draw and heat generation matter—such as mobile workstations or compact embedded systems—the Intel part is the logical choice. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics also provides a display output capability that the Opteron completely lacks, making the Intel chip self-sufficient in a way the AMD server part is not.

However, for pure compute density, the Opteron’s quad-channel DDR3 memory bus, rated at 51.2 GB/s, gives it a memory bandwidth advantage that could benefit memory-intensive server workloads. The Intel part’s dual-channel bus has no listed bandwidth figure, but the architecture suggests a lower ceiling.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Opteron 6386 SE scores 994, while the Intel Core i5-1145GRE scores 988. The AMD part leads by 0.6%.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core i5-1145GRE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-1145GRE has a TDP of 28 W. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has a TDP of 140 W.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-1145GRE and the AMD Opteron 6386 SE list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Intel Core i5-1145GRE has an average benchmark score of 2025, and the AMD Opteron 6386 SE has an average of 2038.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i5-1145GRE has integrated graphics, specifically Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units. The AMD Opteron 6386 SE has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel Core i5-1145GRE uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Opteron 6386 SE uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1500.00 MHz for Intel and 2.80 GHz for AMD; boost clocks are 4.10 GHz and 3.50 GHz, respectively. TDP is 28 W versus 140 W. The Intel part fits an Intel BGA 1449 socket, while the AMD part uses AMD Socket G34. Architecture names differ: Tiger Lake-U versus Piledriver (Abu Dhabi). Process nodes are 10 nm (Intel foundry) and 32 nm (GlobalFoundries). Die size is 144 mm² for Intel, while AMD uses two dies of 315 mm² each. Transistor count is listed only for AMD at 2,400 million. Cache structures diverge: Intel has 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core, while AMD has 768 KB L1 total and 2 MB L2 per module. L3 cache is 8 MB shared on Intel, versus 8 MB per die on AMD. Memory support is DDR4/LPDDR4X for Intel and DDR3 for AMD. Memory bus width is dual-channel for Intel and quad-channel for AMD, with AMD’s bandwidth rated at 51.2 GB/s. PCIe generation is Gen 4 with 4 lanes for Intel, Gen 2 for AMD. Intel includes Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU; AMD has none. Market segments are Mobile versus Server/Workstation. Production status is Active for Intel and End-of-life for AMD. Release dates are 2020-09-01 and 2012-11-04. Launch MSRP is $362 for Intel and $1392 for AMD. Part numbers are SRK10 and OS6386YETGGHK. The multiplier is locked on both.

The benchmark percentile for both processors is 45, placing them in the same performance tier despite their different generations and market positions. The nearest rivals for Intel include the Core i5-1130G7 with an average score of 2026 and a delta of -0.1%, while AMD’s closest rival is the Core i7-7700T at 2039 with a delta of 0%. This data reinforces that the two chips, though architecturally unrelated, deliver nearly identical Cinebench performance.