AMD A10-7700K vs Intel Core i3-7100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall victory for the Intel Core i3-7100, which wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD A10-7700K. The most lopsided result comes in the single-core test, where the Intel part is decisively ahead. In Geekbench single-core, the i3-7100 scores 722, while the A10-7700K manages 447. That is a delta of 61.5% in favor of Intel, a massive gap that highlights the per-core performance advantage of the newer Kaby Lake architecture over the older Steamroller design.

The multi-core result is closer, but still firmly in Intel's favor. The i3-7100 posts a Geekbench multi-core score of 1501, compared to 1155 for the A10-7700K. This translates to a 30% lead for the Intel chip. What makes this notable is that the AMD processor has four physical cores, while the Intel part has only two cores but four threads. The i3-7100 manages to outperform the quad-core A10-7700K by a significant margin, which indicates that the Intel's superior per-core efficiency and simultaneous multithreading more than compensate for the two-core deficit in this workload.

Look at the averages and percentile rankings for additional context. The i3-7100 has an average benchmark score of 781 and sits at the 21st percentile of all CPUs. The A10-7700K, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has a slightly higher average score of 801 and ranks at the 22nd percentile. This apparent contradiction is resolved by the nearest rival data. The A10-7700K's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5530 and Intel Pentium Silver J5040, both with an average score of 801 and a 0% delta. The i3-7100's nearest rivals are the AMD A10-5800K and Intel Pentium G4520, both at 778 with a 0.4% delta. So while the A10-7700K has a marginally higher average in the broader database, the direct head-to-head measurements show Intel winning both tests by wide margins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-7100 is significantly faster. In Geekbench single-core, it scores 722 versus 447 for the AMD A10-7700K, a 61.5% advantage for Intel.

Q: Does the AMD A10-7700K win in any benchmark?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmark tests recorded in the database (Geekbench multi-core and single-core), the Intel Core i3-7100 wins both. The win count is 2 for the i3-7100 and 0 for the A10-7700K.

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

A: The Intel Core i3-7100 leads by 30% in Geekbench multi-core, scoring 1501 against the AMD A10-7700K's 1155. This is despite the AMD part having four physical cores versus two for the Intel.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-7100 has a TDP of 51 watts, while the AMD A10-7700K has a TDP of 95 watts. The Intel chip draws considerably less power according to the thermal design power ratings.

Q: Which processor supports a newer type of memory?

A: The Intel Core i3-7100 supports DDR4 memory, whereas the AMD A10-7700K supports DDR3. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The AMD A10-7700K has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it is designed for overclocking. The Intel Core i3-7100 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-7100 is built on the Kaby Lake architecture, which is the codename for that generation of Intel Core processors. It uses a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel. In contrast, the AMD A10-7700K is based on the Steamroller architecture, codenamed Kaveri, and uses a 28 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. The smaller process node gives Intel a significant advantage in power efficiency and transistor density.

The core configurations differ fundamentally. The i3-7100 has 2 physical cores and 4 threads, meaning it supports Hyper-Threading. The A10-7700K has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. In terms of cache, the Intel chip has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, plus a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The AMD chip has a different layout: 256 KB of L1 cache total and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The lack of L3 cache on the AMD part is a notable architectural difference.

Memory support also diverges. The i3-7100 runs DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The A10-7700K runs DDR3 with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. Both are dual-channel, but the Intel platform supports newer and faster memory technology. The integrated graphics differ as well: the i3-7100 includes Intel HD 630, while the A10-7700K includes Radeon R7 graphics. The AMD part has a larger die size of 245 mm² and 2,411 million transistors, reflecting its older and less dense manufacturing process. The Intel part does not have recorded transistor or die size data in the database.

The release dates show the generational gap. The i3-7100 was released in January 2017, while the A10-7700K came out in January 2014. The AMD chip is marked as end-of-life, whereas the Intel chip is still listed as active production. The sockets are incompatible: the i3-7100 uses Intel Socket 1151, and the A10-7700K uses AMD Socket FM2+.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i3-7100 as the better processor for general performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, and it does so by substantial margins. The 61.5% lead in single-core performance is particularly telling, as single-core speed still matters for many everyday applications and games. The 30% lead in multi-core performance is also surprising given that the AMD part has twice as many physical cores. The i3-7100's combination of a newer architecture, much higher clock speed, and Hyper-Threading allows it to overcome the core count disadvantage.

The A10-7700K does have one clear advantage: it has an unlocked multiplier, so it can be overclocked. This is a meaningful feature for enthusiasts who want to extract more performance manually. However, the recorded benchmark data does not include overclocked results, so any gains from overclocking are not reflected in these numbers. Based strictly on the measured performance, the i3-7100 is the winner.

Power consumption also favors Intel. The i3-7100 has a TDP of 51 watts versus 95 watts for the A10-7700K. This means the Intel chip generates less heat and is easier to cool, which can matter for system builders who prefer quieter or more compact builds. The Intel part also supports DDR4 memory, which is the newer standard and offers higher bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: The i3-7100 has 2 cores, while the A10-7700K has 4 cores.
• Threads: The i3-7100 has 4 threads, while the A10-7700K has 4 threads (no difference in thread count, but the i3 has fewer cores with more threads per core).
• Base Clock: The i3-7100 runs at 3.90 GHz, while the A10-7700K runs at 3.40 GHz.
• Boost Clock: The i3-7100 has no boost clock, while the A10-7700K boosts to 3.80 GHz.
• TDP: The i3-7100 is rated at 51 W, while the A10-7700K is rated at 95 W.
• Socket: The i3-7100 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the A10-7700K uses AMD Socket FM2+.
• Process Node: The i3-7100 uses 14 nm, while the A10-7700K uses 28 nm.
• Foundry: The i3-7100 is made by Intel, while the A10-7700K is made by GlobalFoundries.
• Transistors: The A10-7700K has 2,411 million transistors; the i3-7100 has no recorded figure.
• Die Size: The A10-7700K has a 245 mm² die; the i3-7100 has no recorded figure.
• L1 Cache: The i3-7100 has 64 KB per core, while the A10-7700K has 256 KB total.
• L2 Cache: The i3-7100 has 256 KB per core, while the A10-7700K has 4 MB total.
• L3 Cache: The i3-7100 has 3 MB shared, while the A10-7700K has none.
• Memory Support: The i3-7100 supports DDR4, while the A10-7700K supports DDR3.
• Memory Bandwidth: The i3-7100 offers 38.4 GB/s, while the A10-7700K offers 34.1 GB/s.
• Integrated Graphics: The i3-7100 has Intel HD 630, while the A10-7700K has Radeon R7.
• Production Status: The i3-7100 is active, while the A10-7700K is end-of-life.
• Release Date: The i3-7100 was released in January 2017, while the A10-7700K was released in January 2014.
• Multiplier Unlocked: The i3-7100 is locked, while the A10-7700K is unlocked.
• Part Number: The i3-7100 is SR35C, while the A10-7700K is AD770KXBI44JAAD770KXBI44JABOX.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-7100 wins in every measured benchmark category. In single-core performance, it is dramatically ahead, with a 61.5% edge over the A10-7700K. This makes it the better choice for applications that rely heavily on single-threaded performance, such as older games, office software, and lightly threaded productivity tools. The 30% multi-core lead means it also handles multi-threaded workloads better, despite having fewer physical cores. The lower TDP of 51 watts makes it a better fit for small form factor builds or systems where cooling is a constraint.

The AMD A10-7700K has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its strengths lie outside the measured performance metrics. The unlocked multiplier makes it the better candidate for overclocking enthusiasts who want to push the chip beyond stock settings. The four physical cores could theoretically help in workloads that scale perfectly with core count, but the recorded multi-core benchmark shows the i3-7100 still wins by 30%. The A10-7700K also has a higher average benchmark score in the broader database (801 versus 781), but that is based on a different set of comparisons and does not change the direct head-to-head results.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the i3-7100 is the obvious pick for performance. It is faster in both single-core and multi-core tests, uses less power, supports newer DDR4 memory, and is still in active production. The A10-7700K is an older, end-of-life platform that only makes sense if overclocking potential is a priority and the user is willing to accept lower stock performance and higher power draw. The benchmark data is unambiguous: Intel wins both tests, and the margins are large enough to matter in real-world use.