AMD A10-7860K vs Intel Core i3-4330T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD A10-7860K wins every single benchmark in this head-to-head comparison. There are no exceptions, no mixed results, and no surprises. The Intel Core i3-4330T trails in all five recorded tests, with the AMD part holding a steady advantage across both single-core and multi-core workloads.

Starting with multi-core performance, the Cinebench R15 test shows the A10-7860K scoring 279 against the i3-4330T’s 265, a 5% margin. That pattern repeats almost identically in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the AMD chip posts 1166 versus 1108, again a 5% lead. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result follows the same trajectory: 2778 for the A10-7860K versus 2639 for the i3-4330T, maintaining that consistent 5% gap. The consistency here is notable — across three generations of the Cinebench test suite, the relative performance difference barely moves, suggesting a stable architectural advantage rather than workload-specific variability.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though with slightly different margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the A10-7860K scores 164 against the i3-4330T’s 156, a 4.9% lead. The R23 single-core test shows 392 versus 372, a 5.1% gap. These numbers are intriguing because single-core performance typically favors Intel’s architecture in this era, yet the data shows AMD’s Steamroller core holding its own — and then some — against Intel’s Haswell design.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this narrow but consistent edge: the i3-4330T averages 908 across its tests, while the A10-7860K averages 904. Wait — that seems backwards. The AMD chip wins every head-to-head test yet has a lower average score? This is because the averages include different test suites. The i3-4330T’s average includes only Cinebench results, while the A10-7860K’s average pulls in Geekbench scores as well, which drags its mean downward. The Geekbench multi-core score of 1103 and single-core score of 447 are relatively modest compared to the Cinebench numbers, illustrating how benchmark selection can shift the overall picture.

The nearestRivals data contextualizes these two chips within a broader field. The i3-4330T sits at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, with the AMD PRO A12-9800E just 0.3% ahead at 910 average score, and the AMD A10-7860K itself 0.4% behind at 904. The A10-7860K also occupies the 24th percentile, with the Intel Core i7-940 and i5-5350U effectively tied at 903 (0.1% behind), and the i3-4330T 0.4% ahead. Both chips are essentially peers in the broader landscape, separated by fractions of a percent in average score.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the A10-7860K claims all five head-to-head victories, the use-case split is heavily skewed toward the AMD part. The consistent 5% margins across multi-core tests suggest the A10-7860K is the better choice for threaded workloads — rendering, encoding, or any task that scales across cores. Its four physical cores provide a foundation that the i3-4330T’s two cores plus Hyper-Threading cannot fully overcome, even though the i3’s thread count matches at four.

Single-core performance is where the data gets more interesting. The A10-7860K still wins, but the 4.9-5.1% margins are not dramatically larger than the multi-core gaps. This suggests the Steamroller architecture’s per-core efficiency is competitive with Haswell in these specific Cinebench tests, despite Intel’s reputation for stronger single-thread performance during this generation. For workloads that are lightly threaded — older games, legacy applications, or single-threaded productivity tools — the A10-7860K retains a measurable edge, though a modest one.

Where might the i3-4330T find favor? The data doesn’t show a single benchmark win for Intel, so any use-case advantage must come from non-benchmark factors. The i3-4330T’s 35W TDP versus 65W for the A10-7860K suggests lower power draw, which could translate to quieter operation, lower cooling requirements, or better performance in thermally constrained environments. The Intel chip’s 22nm process node versus AMD’s 28nm also hints at better efficiency per clock, though the benchmark data doesn’t directly measure this.

The A10-7860K’s unlocked multiplier and Radeon R7 integrated graphics give it additional flexibility. Overclocking could push its 4.00GHz boost clock further, potentially widening the benchmark gap. The Radeon R7 iGPU also offers a different graphical capability profile than Intel HD 4600, though neither chip’s integrated graphics scores appear in the benchmark data, so this remains a qualitative observation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is substantial, reflecting two very different design philosophies from the mid-2010s. Intel’s Core i3-4330T uses the Haswell architecture on a 22nm process, manufactured by Intel’s own fabs. The chip packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. AMD’s A10-7860K employs the Steamroller architecture on a 28nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 2,411 million transistors spread across a much larger 245 mm² die. The transistor count difference is stark — AMD packs over a billion more transistors — but the larger, denser die doesn’t translate into a proportional performance advantage in the benchmarks.

Core counts differ fundamentally. The i3-4330T offers 2 cores and 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the A10-7860K provides 4 physical cores and 4 threads with no SMT. The thread counts match at four, but the physical core arrangement differs: Intel relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach four threads, while AMD uses four discrete execution units. The benchmark results suggest AMD’s approach wins out in these tests, though the margin is narrow enough that Intel’s SMT implementation clearly isn’t a liability.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. The i3-4330T has 64KB L1 per core, 256KB L2 per core, and 4MB shared L3. The A10-7860K offers 256KB L1 total, 4MB L2 total, and no L3 cache at all. Intel’s per-core L1 and L2 allocations are generous, but the shared 4MB L3 provides a pooled resource. AMD’s larger L2 cache — 4MB versus 1MB total (256KB × 4) — partially compensates for the absence of L3. This cache difference could explain the AMD chip’s consistent edge: its 4MB L2 is four times larger than Intel’s total L2, potentially reducing memory latency in workloads that fit within that capacity.

Memory support is similar on paper — both use DDR3 with dual-channel buses — but the A10-7860K lists a specific memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the i3-4330T provides no bandwidth figure. The AMD chip also enables PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel lists PCIe Gen 3 without lane details. Both lack ECC support, so that’s not a differentiator.

The process node difference — 22nm Intel versus 28nm AMD — intersects with TDP in revealing ways. The i3-4330T draws 35W despite being on a smaller node, while the A10-7860K consumes 65W on the larger 28nm process. The AMD chip’s higher power budget likely enables its higher base clock (3.60GHz versus 3.00GHz) and boost clock (4.00GHz versus none on the i3). Intel’s lower TDP and smaller process suggest better power efficiency per unit of performance, though the benchmarks don’t measure efficiency directly.

Release dates and production status differ meaningfully. The i3-4330T launched in August 2013, while the A10-7860K arrived in February 2016 — a roughly 2.5-year gap that places AMD’s chip in a later era of the same overall market segment. The A10-7860K is explicitly marked as end-of-life, while the i3-4330T’s production status is not specified. The AMD part’s multiplier is unlocked; the Intel part’s is not, making the A10-7860K the only overclockable option here.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD A10-7860K wins all multi-core tests, with 5% leads in Cinebench R15 (279 vs 265), R20 (1166 vs 1108), and R23 (2778 vs 2639).

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The A10-7860K also leads in single-core tests, posting 164 vs 156 in Cinebench R20 (4.9% lead) and 392 vs 372 in R23 (5.1% lead).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The i3-4330T averages 908, while the A10-7860K averages 904. The A10’s lower average includes Geekbench scores, which are not in the i3’s test set.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory?

A: Both support DDR3 with dual-channel buses. The A10-7860K lists a 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth figure; the i3-4330T does not specify bandwidth.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Both sit at the 24th percentile of all CPUs. The i3-4330T’s nearest rival is the AMD PRO A12-9800E at 910 (0.3% ahead), while the A10-7860K’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-940 at 903 (0.1% behind).

Q: Which chip has more physical cores?

A: The A10-7860K has 4 physical cores, while the i3-4330T has 2 cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. Both present 4 threads to software.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-4330T | AMD A10-7860K |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 35W | 65W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket FM2+ |

| Architecture | Haswell | Steamroller |

| Codename | Haswell | Godaveri |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 2,411 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 245 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 4 MB |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 34.1 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 | Radeon R7 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2013-08-31 | 2016-02-01 |

| Production Status | Not specified | End-of-life |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD A10-7860K outperforms the Intel Core i3-4330T in every single head-to-head test. The margins are consistent — roughly 5% across both single-core and multi-core Cinebench workloads — which suggests the AMD chip’s advantage is architectural rather than workload-specific. Users seeking raw compute performance should choose the A10-7860K, particularly for multi-threaded applications where its four physical cores provide a stable foundation.

The i3-4330T’s case rests on factors outside the benchmark results. Its 35W TDP is nearly half the A10-7860K’s 65W, making it the better option for power-constrained builds, small form factor systems, or scenarios where heat dissipation is a concern. The 22nm process node and smaller die size suggest greater efficiency per watt, even if the benchmarks don’t capture this directly. For users who prioritize low power consumption over peak performance, the i3-4330T remains a viable choice.

Enthusiasts should note the A10-7860K’s unlocked multiplier, which allows overclocking beyond its 4.00GHz boost clock. This headroom could widen the already-consistent benchmark gap. The AMD chip also carries a more recent release date and a larger transistor count, though its end-of-life status means it no longer receives active production support.

The verdict is straightforward: for pure computational performance, the AMD A10-7860K is the superior processor in this matchup. The i3-4330T appeals only to those for whom power efficiency outweighs the 5% performance deficit — and that’s a narrow use case. The data says the A10-7860K wins, and it wins everywhere.