AMD A10-5800K vs Intel Core i3-3250T Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the AMD A10-5800K and Intel Core i3-3250T compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The database shows the AMD A10-5800K has an average benchmark score of 778, while the Intel Core i3-3250T scores 775. The difference is 0.4% in favor of the AMD part, placing both processors at the 21st percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the core and thread configurations of these two processors?

A: The AMD A10-5800K has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core i3-3250T has 2 cores and 4 threads, using Hyper-Threading to reach its thread count.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The AMD A10-5800K has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel Core i3-3250T has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and no boost clock capability.

Q: What integrated graphics do these chips include?

A: The AMD A10-5800K integrates a Radeon HD 7660D. The Intel Core i3-3250T integrates an Intel HD 2500.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each processor?

A: The AMD A10-5800K has a TDP of 100 watts. The Intel Core i3-3250T has a TDP of 35 watts, which is significantly lower.

Q: Which processor uses a newer manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core i3-3250T is built on a 22 nm process by Intel. The AMD A10-5800K uses a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries.

The Verdict

The data positions these two processors at nearly the same performance level. The AMD A10-5800K averages 778 points, the Intel Core i3-3250T averages 775 points, a gap of only 0.4%. Both sit at the 21st percentile of all CPUs in the database. For pure average performance, the choice is nearly a tie.

The real separation appears in specific workloads. The AMD part has four physical cores, a higher base clock of 3.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel part has two physical cores with four threads, a 3.00 GHz base clock, and no boost. In multi-threaded rendering tasks, the Intel i3-3250T shows strong results in Cinebench tests, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2252. The AMD A10-5800K lacks a comparable Cinebench entry in the recorded data, so direct multi-thread comparison relies on the average scores and the core count advantage.

The Intel i3-3250T presents a clear advantage in power efficiency. Its 35 watt TDP is dramatically lower than the AMD's 100 watt TDP. For systems where heat and power draw matter, the Intel part is the sensible pick. The AMD A10-5800K, with its unlocked multiplier, offers overclocking headroom that the Intel part does not provide. The i3-3250T has a locked multiplier.

Users who prioritize multi-threaded throughput and overclocking flexibility should lean toward the AMD A10-5800K. Users who value low power consumption, a smaller die size, and a more modern 22 nm manufacturing node should choose the Intel Core i3-3250T. In raw average benchmark terms, the database records no meaningful winner: the margin is less than half a percent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two processors. Instead, the comparison relies on each part's individual recorded scores and their nearest rival relationships.

The AMD A10-5800K's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Pentium G4520 with an identical average score of 778 and a delta of 0%. The AMD Athlon X4 760K scores 777, a 0.2% difference. The Intel Pentium Silver J5005 scores 776, a 0.3% difference. The Intel Core i3-7100 scores 781, which is 0.4% higher than the A10-5800K. These figures place the AMD part in a tight cluster where no competitor is more than 0.4% away in either direction.

The Intel Core i3-3250T's nearest rivals include the Intel Celeron G5920 with an identical average score of 775 and a delta of 0%. The Intel Pentium Silver J5005 scores 776, which is 0.1% higher. The AMD Athlon X4 760K scores 777, which is 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i7-3687U scores 773, which is 0.3% lower. The Intel part also sits in a very narrow band, with rivals ranging from 0.3% below to 0.2% above.

The Intel Core i3-3250T has recorded Cinebench results that show its multi-thread performance profile. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score is 226. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core score is 945, and its R20 single-core score is 133. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 2252, and its R23 single-core score is 318. These numbers demonstrate that the two-core, four-thread design can still produce competitive rendering scores.

The AMD A10-5800K has recorded Geekbench results: a multi-core score of 1102 and a single-core score of 454. The two chips use different benchmark suites in the database, so direct cross-suite comparisons are not possible. The average scores remain the only common metric, and they show a 0.4% difference.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ. The AMD A10-5800K has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core i3-3250T has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Clock speeds differ. The AMD part runs at 3.80 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The Intel part runs at 3.00 GHz base with no boost clock.

TDP differs substantially. The AMD part is rated at 100 watts. The Intel part is rated at 35 watts.

Sockets differ. The AMD A10-5800K uses AMD Socket FM2. The Intel Core i3-3250T uses Intel Socket 1155.

Cache configurations differ. The AMD part has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of shared L2 cache, with no L3 cache. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory bandwidth differs. The AMD part supports 29.9 GB/s. The Intel part supports 25.6 GB/s. Both support dual-channel DDR3 memory.

PCIe generations differ. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 2. The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the CPU.

The multiplier is unlocked on the AMD A10-5800K and locked on the Intel Core i3-3250T. The integrated graphics differ: Radeon HD 7660D on the AMD, Intel HD 2500 on the Intel.

Die size and process node differ. The AMD die is 246 mm² on a 32 nm node with 1,303 million transistors. The Intel die is 94 mm² on a 22 nm node with no transistor count recorded in the database.

Release dates differ. The AMD A10-5800K was released on 2012-10-01. The Intel Core i3-3250T was released on 2013-06-08. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The AMD A10-5800K is built on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Trinity, using the A10 (Trinity) generation. It uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The design spreads 1,303 million transistors across a 246 mm² die. Its cache hierarchy relies on a shared L2 design with no L3 cache. The integrated graphics is the Radeon HD 7660D.

The Intel Core i3-3250T is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, using the Core i3 (Ivy Bridge) generation. It uses a 22 nm process from Intel. The die size is 94 mm², and no transistor count is recorded in the database. Its cache hierarchy uses per-core L1 and L2 caches plus a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The integrated graphics is Intel HD 2500.

The architectural differences reflect two different design philosophies. The AMD part uses a wider physical core layout with four integer cores and a shared L2 cache, aiming for raw multi-thread throughput. The Intel part uses a smaller dual-core design with Hyper-Threading, a shared L3 cache, and a more advanced 22 nm process, aiming for efficiency. The 35 watt TDP on the Intel part, compared to 100 watts on the AMD part, shows the efficiency gap between the two nodes and designs.

The PCIe implementation also differs: the AMD part supports Gen 2, while the Intel part supports Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the CPU. This makes the Intel part more modern in its interconnect capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A10-5800K wins in scenarios that benefit from four physical cores. Its 4-core, 4-thread layout provides more parallel execution units than the Intel's 2-core, 4-thread layout. Its higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz give it a clock speed advantage in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which can extend its performance beyond stock settings. Its higher memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, compared to 25.6 GB/s for the Intel part, gives it a slight edge in memory-intensive tasks. The integrated Radeon HD 7660D is also a stronger graphics solution on paper than the Intel HD 2500, making the AMD part more suitable for systems without a discrete GPU.

The Intel Core i3-3250T wins in efficiency-focused scenarios. Its 35 watt TDP is less than half the AMD part's 100 watt TDP. This makes it suitable for compact, low-power builds. Its 22 nm process and 94 mm² die size indicate a much smaller, denser chip. The presence of a shared 3 MB L3 cache, which the AMD part lacks entirely, can improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads. The Intel part also supports PCIe Gen 3, which is a newer standard than the AMD's Gen 2. Its Cinebench results, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2252 and a single-core score of 318, show that its two-core design with Hyper-Threading remains capable in rendering workloads.

For users who need raw multi-thread throughput, overclocking flexibility, and a stronger integrated GPU, the AMD A10-5800K is the better choice. For users who need low power consumption, a smaller footprint, and a more advanced manufacturing process, the Intel Core i3-3250T is the better choice. In average benchmark terms, the two are effectively tied, with the AMD part holding a 0.4% lead.