AMD A10 PRO-7800B vs Intel Core i3-3240 Comparison

The Intel Core i3-3240 and AMD A10 PRO-7800B are two desktop processors from different design philosophies. The Intel part is a dual-core chip with Hyper-Threading, built on a 22 nm process, while the AMD part is a true quad-core design on a 28 nm process with a higher base clock and a boost capability. The recorded benchmark data in the database provides a clear, if narrow, comparison: the Intel Core i3-3240 wins both head-to-head tests, but the margin and the overall performance context reveal a more nuanced picture than the simple win count suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between these processors, both using the Geekbench suite. In the multi-core test, the Intel Core i3-3240 scores 1233 against the AMD A10 PRO-7800B's 1055. This represents a 16.9% advantage for the Intel chip. The result is notable because the AMD processor has twice the physical core count, yet the Intel part, with its four threads from two cores, still manages to pull ahead by a substantial margin.

The single-core comparison is even more lopsided. The Intel Core i3-3240 records a score of 650, while the AMD A10 PRO-7800B manages only 436. That is a 49.1% difference in favor of the Intel processor. Single-core performance is critical for many everyday applications, including older games and lightly threaded productivity tools. A lead of nearly half over the AMD part indicates a significant architectural efficiency advantage for the Intel design, despite the AMD chip having a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz compared to 3.40 GHz for the Intel part.

The average benchmark score across all recorded tests tells a similar story. The Intel Core i3-3240 has an average score of 761, placing it at the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD A10 PRO-7800B has an average score of 746, also at the 20th percentile. The 15-point gap in average scores is small, but it aligns with the head-to-head results: the Intel part is consistently ahead, even if only by a modest amount in the aggregate.

The nearest rival data provides additional context for each processor. The Intel Core i3-3240 sits in a tight cluster of competitors. Its average score of 761 is within 0.6% of the AMD A8-6600K (764), the Intel Core i5-3210M (758), the Intel Core i3-5020U (757), and the Intel Xeon E5450 (756). The Intel chip is essentially tied with these parts, trailing the A8-6600K by just 0.3% and leading the others by 0.4% to 0.6%. This suggests the i3-3240 delivers performance on par with a range of contemporary and slightly newer processors.

The AMD A10 PRO-7800B's nearest rivals paint a similar picture of parity. Its average score of 746 exactly matches the Intel Core i5-4200U, with a 0% delta. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD FX-9800P (745), 0.2% behind the Intel Core i5-750 (747), and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon E5520 (742). The AMD part is therefore firmly planted in the same performance tier as these competing chips, neither dominating nor being dominated by any of them.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite available for the Intel Core i3-3240, its performance profile shows consistent results across multiple rendering and compute workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 201. In Cinebench R20, it scores 840 in multi-core and 118 in single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 2000 in multi-core and 282 in single-core. The Geekbench scores of 1233 multi-core and 650 single-core round out the picture. The AMD A10 PRO-7800B, by contrast, only has Geekbench results recorded in the database, so its performance in Cinebench workloads is not available for direct comparison. This lack of data means the Intel part's lead in the head-to-head is based solely on Geekbench, but the Cinebench numbers for the Intel chip show it is a capable performer in rendering tasks as well.

The discrepancy between the multi-core and single-core margins is worth examining. The 16.9% multi-core lead and the 49.1% single-core lead both favor Intel, but the single-core gap is nearly three times larger. This pattern suggests that the AMD A10 PRO-7800B's four cores help it close some of the gap in multi-threaded workloads, but its per-core performance is substantially weaker. The Intel Core i3-3240's architectural efficiency, derived from its Ivy Bridge design, allows it to win both tests convincingly.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core i3-3240 is the faster processor in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, and it does so by significant margins in both cases. The 16.9% multi-core advantage and the 49.1% single-core advantage are not trivial gaps. For any user prioritizing raw CPU performance in the workloads represented by Geekbench, the Intel part is the superior choice.

The AMD A10 PRO-7800B is not without merit, however. It has four physical cores, a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. It also includes the Radeon R7 integrated graphics, which is a more capable GPU solution on paper than the Intel HD 2500 found in the i3-3240. For users who need integrated graphics performance, the AMD part may be the better fit, even though the CPU benchmark data favors Intel.

The average benchmark scores place both processors at the 20th percentile of all CPUs. This means neither chip is a high-end performer by modern standards. They are entry-level or mid-range parts, and the performance difference between them, while real, does not change the fundamental tier they occupy. The Intel Core i3-3240 is the better CPU in a head-to-head comparison, but the AMD A10 PRO-7800B offers a different feature set that may appeal to specific use cases.

The production status of the AMD A10 PRO-7800B is listed as end-of-life, while the Intel Core i3-3240 has no recorded production status. This suggests the AMD part may be harder to find new, but the database does not provide enough information to determine the Intel part's current availability. The release dates differ as well: the Intel chip was released in September 2012, while the AMD chip came later, in July 2014. Despite the later release, the AMD part does not outperform the older Intel chip in the recorded benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-3240 wins in all measured CPU performance categories. In Geekbench multi-core, it beats the AMD A10 PRO-7800B by 16.9%. In Geekbench single-core, it wins by 49.1%. The Intel part also has a higher average benchmark score: 761 versus 746. For any workload that relies on CPU throughput or single-thread performance, the Intel chip is the stronger option. This includes lightly threaded applications, many games, and general desktop productivity tasks.

The AMD A10 PRO-7800B does not win any recorded CPU benchmark, but it does have attributes that could make it preferable in other contexts. It has four physical cores, which may be beneficial in workloads that scale with core count, even if the Geekbench multi-core result does not reflect an advantage. Its boost clock of 3.90 GHz is higher than the Intel chip's 3.40 GHz base clock, and it has a larger L2 cache at 4 MB compared to the Intel part's 256 KB per core. The AMD part also has a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, a figure not recorded for the Intel chip.

The integrated graphics situation is another point of differentiation. The AMD A10 PRO-7800B ships with Radeon R7 graphics, while the Intel Core i3-3240 has Intel HD 2500. The database does not provide benchmark scores for these integrated GPUs, so a direct performance comparison is not possible. However, the Radeon R7 is generally a more robust integrated solution, and for users who do not plan to install a discrete GPU, the AMD part may offer a better experience. The database does not provide numbers to confirm this, so it remains a qualitative observation.

For users who care about power consumption, the Intel Core i3-3240 has a TDP of 55 watts, while the AMD A10 PRO-7800B has a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel chip consumes less power on paper, which could lead to lower system heat and potentially lower electricity costs over time. The database does not provide measured power draw, so the TDP figures are the only available reference.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Geekbench score?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 scores 650 in Geekbench single-core, which is 49.1% higher than the AMD A10 PRO-7800B's score of 436.

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

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 scores 1233 in Geekbench multi-core, while the AMD A10 PRO-7800B scores 1055. The Intel part leads by 16.9%.

Q: What are the core counts and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD A10 PRO-7800B has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD A10 PRO-7800B has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core i3-3240's base clock of 3.40 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR3 memory and use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 has an average benchmark score of 761, and the AMD A10 PRO-7800B has an average benchmark score of 746.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core i3-3240 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process by Intel. The AMD A10 PRO-7800B uses the Steamroller architecture under the Kaveri codename, manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The smaller process node for Intel gives it a transistor size advantage, which contributes to its higher efficiency per clock.

The die sizes differ significantly. The Intel chip has a die size of 94 mm², while the AMD chip has a die size of 245 mm². The AMD part also has a transistor count of 2,411 million, a figure not recorded for the Intel chip. The larger die and higher transistor count for AMD reflect its more complex integrated design, which includes the Radeon R7 graphics and four CPU cores.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Intel Core i3-3240 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The AMD A10 PRO-7800B has a total of 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache recorded. The AMD part's larger L2 cache may help mitigate the absence of L3, but the Intel part's L3 cache provides a different caching strategy that appears to work well in the recorded benchmarks.

Memory support is similar, with both using DDR3 and dual-channel memory. The AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel part does not have a bandwidth figure in the database. Both processors support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Intel Core i3-3240 includes Intel HD 2500, while the AMD A10 PRO-7800B includes Radeon R7. The AMD part's integrated GPU is part of a larger die design, which explains its higher transistor count and die size. The Intel part's smaller die and simpler integrated GPU contribute to its lower TDP of 55 watts compared to the AMD part's 65 watts.

The sockets are incompatible. The Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1155, while the AMD chip uses AMD Socket FM2+. This means a system built for one processor cannot use the other without a motherboard change. The release dates also differ, with the Intel part launching in September 2012 and the AMD part in July 2014. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either platform.

The process node difference is a key architectural factor. The 22 nm process for Intel versus the 28 nm process for AMD gives Intel a density and efficiency advantage. This is reflected in the benchmark results, where the Intel chip achieves higher scores despite having fewer physical cores. The architectural efficiency of Ivy Bridge, combined with the smaller process node, allows the Intel Core i3-3240 to outperform the newer AMD part in both single-core and multi-core tests. The AMD A10 PRO-7800B compensates with more cores and a higher clock speed, but the recorded data shows that this is not enough to overcome the Intel chip's per-core advantage.