AMD A10-6800K vs Intel Core i5-L16G7 Comparison

# Intel Core i5-L16G7 vs AMD A10-6800K

The Intel Core i5-L16G7 and AMD A10-6800K represent two fundamentally different approaches to CPU design, separated by nearly a decade of semiconductor evolution. The Intel part is a 5-core, 5-thread Lakefield mobile processor built on a 10 nm process, while the AMD A10-6800K is a 4-core, 4-thread Piledriver desktop chip from the Richland generation on 32 nm. Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 816 and 809 respectively — a margin of less than one percent. The Intel chip edges ahead with a 0.9% higher average score, but the benchmark data tells a more nuanced story when individual tests are examined. These are not competing products in the traditional sense; one is a low-power hybrid for portable devices, the other a high-frequency desktop part with an unlocked multiplier. Their performance profiles diverge sharply across different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A10-6800K dominates in single-threaded performance, which is evident from the Geekbench single-core test where it scores 478 against Intel's 165 in Cinebench R20 single-core — though these are different benchmarks, the pattern is consistent. The A10-6800K's 4.10 GHz base clock and 4.40 GHz boost clock give it a massive clock-speed advantage over the Intel chip, which runs at 1.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. In multi-threaded workloads, however, the Intel Core i5-L16G7 takes the lead despite its lower clocks. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2793 for Intel versus the A10-6800K's Geekbench multi-core score of 1140 shows that the Intel part's 5 cores and 5 threads, combined with its modern architecture, can outperform the older AMD design in sustained parallel workloads.

The Intel i5-L16G7 is clearly the better choice for mobile computing, with a 7 W TDP compared to the A10-6800K's 100 W TDP — a 93-watt difference that makes the Intel chip suitable for fanless or ultra-portable designs. The AMD processor, with its 100 W TDP and desktop socket FM2, is designed for traditional desktop systems where power consumption is less of a concern. For users who need raw single-thread responsiveness, the A10-6800K delivers, but for battery-powered devices requiring efficient multi-core throughput, the Intel part is the only viable option. The data shows that the A10-6800K wins on raw clock speed and single-thread tasks, while the i5-L16G7 wins on architectural efficiency and multi-core scaling.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on vastly different architectures. Intel's Lakefield is a hybrid design that combines a 10 nm process with a stacked 3D packaging approach, integrating a 4,050 million transistor die at 82 mm². AMD's Richland, based on the Piledriver architecture, uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries with 1,303 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. This means the Intel chip packs over three times the transistor count into less than one-third the die area, highlighting the density advantage of the newer process node.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Intel i5-L16G7 has 80 KB of L1 cache, 512 KB of L2, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD A10-6800K has 192 KB of L1, 4 MB of L2, and no L3 cache at all. The AMD chip's larger L2 cache (4 MB versus 512 KB) partially compensates for the lack of L3, but the Intel design's shared L3 provides a different memory hierarchy strategy. Memory support also differs: Intel uses LPDDR4X with a single-channel bus delivering 17.1 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus delivering 34.1 GB/s — exactly double the bandwidth.

Additional architectural differences include PCIe support: Intel offers Gen 3 with 6 CPU lanes, while AMD provides Gen 2. The integrated graphics also differ, with Intel's UHD Graphics 64EU versus AMD's Radeon HD 8670D. The A10-6800K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the i5-L16G7 does not. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry, while AMD relied on GlobalFoundries for the 32 nm node.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD A10-6800K demonstrates superior single-core performance, scoring 478 in Geekbench single-core compared to the Intel i5-L16G7's 165 in Cinebench R20 single-core. This aligns with the AMD chip's 4.10 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost clocks versus Intel's 1.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel i5-L16G7 achieves 2793 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD A10-6800K scores 1140 in Geekbench multi-core. Despite the AMD chip having higher clock speeds, the Intel part's 5 cores and 5 threads on a modern architecture deliver better parallel performance.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel i5-L16G7 has a TDP of 7 W, while the AMD A10-6800K has a TDP of 100 W. This 93 W difference makes the Intel chip dramatically more power-efficient, suitable for mobile devices, whereas the AMD chip requires desktop-class cooling and power delivery.

Q: Which processor has more cache memory?

A: The AMD A10-6800K has 192 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2 cache, but no L3. The Intel i5-L16G7 has 80 KB of L1, 512 KB of L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. In total capacity, AMD has more L1+L2 (4.2 MB vs 0.6 MB), but Intel's L3 provides additional shared cache.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The AMD A10-6800K was released on 2013-05-31, while the Intel i5-L16G7 has no release date listed in the data. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status.

Q: Can the AMD processor be overclocked?

A: Yes, the AMD A10-6800K has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The Intel i5-L16G7 does not have an unlocked multiplier, so its clock speeds are fixed.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 5 (Intel) vs 4 (AMD)
• Threads: 5 (Intel) vs 4 (AMD)
• Base Clock: 1.40 GHz (Intel) vs 4.10 GHz (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 3.00 GHz (Intel) vs 4.40 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 7 W (Intel) vs 100 W (AMD)
• Socket: Not listed (Intel) vs AMD Socket FM2
• Architecture: Lakefield (Intel) vs Piledriver (AMD)
• Process Node: 10 nm (Intel) vs 32 nm (AMD)
• Foundry: Intel vs GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 4,050 million (Intel) vs 1,303 million (AMD)
• Die Size: 82 mm² (Intel) vs 246 mm² (AMD)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB (Intel) vs 192 KB (AMD)
• L2 Cache: 512 KB (Intel) vs 4 MB (AMD)
• L3 Cache: 4 MB shared (Intel) vs None (AMD)
• Memory Support: LPDDR4X (Intel) vs DDR3 (AMD)
• Memory Bus: Single-channel (Intel) vs Dual-channel (AMD)
• Memory Bandwidth: 17.1 GB/s (Intel) vs 34.1 GB/s (AMD)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 6 lanes (Intel) vs Gen 2 (AMD)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 64EU (Intel) vs Radeon HD 8670D (AMD)
• Market Segment: Mobile (Intel) vs Desktop (AMD)
• Multiplier Unlocked: No (Intel) vs Yes (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: $281 (Intel) vs $142 (AMD)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data available for direct comparison is limited because the two processors were tested with different benchmark suites. The Intel i5-L16G7 has Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 scores, while the AMD A10-6800K has Geekbench scores. This makes direct apples-to-apples comparison impossible, but the available numbers still reveal meaningful performance characteristics.

In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Intel i5-L16G7 scores 281, and in single-core it scores 89.5. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Intel chip improves to 1173 multi-core and 165 single-core. In Cinebench R23, the Intel processor achieves 2793 multi-core and 394 single-core. These scores show consistent scaling across Cinebench versions, with the multi-core to single-core ratio ranging from 3.1x in R15 to 7.1x in R23 — indicating that the Intel part's multi-threading capabilities become more pronounced in newer, more demanding workloads.

The AMD A10-6800K's Geekbench scores are 1140 multi-core and 478 single-core, giving a multi-core to single-core ratio of 2.4x. This lower scaling factor suggests that the AMD chip's four cores are less effective at parallel scaling compared to the Intel chip's five cores. The Intel part's 5-core configuration with 5 threads appears to extract better multi-threaded performance per core, even at dramatically lower clock speeds.

The nearest rival data places both processors in similar performance territory. The Intel i5-L16G7's closest rival is the Intel Xeon X3440 with an average score of 815 (delta 0.1%), followed by the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 and Core i7-5550U at 813 (delta 0.4%). The AMD A10-6800K's closest rival is the Intel Core i7-870S at 809 (delta 0%), with the Athlon X4 850 and Xeon X5482 at 806 and 805 (delta 0.4%). Notably, the Intel Core i7-5550U appears as a rival for both processors, with a score of 813 — within 0.4% of the Intel i5-L16G7 and within 0.5% of the AMD A10-6800K.

The average benchmark score difference between the two processors is minimal: 816 for Intel versus 809 for AMD, a 0.9% gap. This places them in the same performance class overall, despite their radically different architectures, power envelopes, and target markets. The data indicates that the A10-6800K's high clock speeds compensate for its older architecture in many workloads, while the i5-L16G7's modern design and efficiency allow it to compete despite a fraction of the power draw.