CPU Comparison

The AMD A12-9800 and Intel Core i3-4170T are two low-power desktop processors from different eras and platforms, yet they land in the same performance percentile. Both sit at the 30th percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the AMD part at 1081 and the Intel part at 1072. The data shows a clean sweep in raw compute benchmarks for the AMD A12-9800, which wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the story is more nuanced than a simple victory, as the two chips target fundamentally different system configurations and use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A12-9800 is the clear winner in every multi-threaded and single-threaded Cinebench workload recorded. Its advantage is remarkably consistent, ranging from 17.7% to 18.5% across all five tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the A12-9800 scores 3140 against the i3-4170T's 2667, a 17.7% lead. The single-core gap is nearly identical, with the A12-9800 posting 443 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 376 for the i3-4170T, a 17.8% edge. This suggests that the AMD part has a structural advantage in both integer and floating-point throughput per clock, despite the Intel chip's higher architectural efficiency per core.

The Intel Core i3-4170T does not win any of the five recorded head-to-head benchmarks. However, its competitive positioning comes from its drastically lower power envelope and its platform attributes rather than raw Cinebench scores. The i3-4170T has a TDP of 35 watts compared to the A12-9800's 65 watts, making it the superior choice for silent, low-heat builds or systems with minimal cooling. The data shows the i3-4170T also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, double the 8 lanes available on the AMD part, which matters for users planning to install a discrete graphics card or additional PCIe devices.

For pure CPU compute workloads like rendering in Cinebench, the AMD A12-9800 is the unequivocal pick. For users building a compact, energy-efficient system where the CPU's thermal output is the primary constraint, the i3-4170T's 35-watt TDP gives it a definitive advantage that no benchmark score can offset. The AMD chip's 65-watt TDP is nearly double, meaning it requires more substantial cooling and power delivery, which could negate its compute lead in space-constrained or passively-cooled designs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The AMD A12-9800 is built on GlobalFoundries' 28 nm process and uses the Excavator architecture, part of the Bristol Ridge family. It integrates 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Core i3-4170T uses the Haswell architecture on Intel's 22 nm process, packing 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The Intel chip is smaller and uses a more advanced process node, which explains its superior power efficiency despite having fewer transistors.

Core configuration differs significantly. The A12-9800 has 4 physical cores with 4 threads, while the i3-4170T has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. The AMD chip's two additional physical cores are the primary reason for its consistent Cinebench lead, as the benchmarks scale with physical core count. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the A12-9800 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The i3-4170T has 64 KB of L1 cache per core (128 KB total), 256 KB of L2 per core (512 KB total), and a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The Intel chip's L3 cache helps compensate for its lower core count in certain workloads, though not enough to overcome the AMD part's physical core advantage in these tests.

Memory support is a major platform split. The AMD A12-9800 uses DDR4 memory with dual-channel support and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel i3-4170T uses DDR3 with dual-channel support and a lower 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. This 50% bandwidth advantage for the AMD part (38.4 GB/s vs 25.6 GB/s) likely contributes to its multi-core wins, especially in memory-sensitive rendering tasks. The sockets are incompatible: the A12-9800 uses AMD Socket AM4, while the i3-4170T uses Intel Socket 1150. The AMD chip also features a Radeon R7 integrated graphics solution, while the Intel part has HD 4400 graphics.

The i3-4170T has a base clock of 3.20 GHz with no boost capability, while the A12-9800 runs at 3.80 GHz base and boosts to 4.20 GHz. This 1.0 GHz boost headroom on the AMD part is substantial and directly explains its single-core benchmark advantage. Both processors lack an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either. Production status differs too: the A12-9800 is listed as Active, while the i3-4170T is End-of-life, meaning the AMD part is still available for new builds while the Intel chip is legacy hardware.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin of victory for the AMD A12-9800 comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 186 against the i3-4170T's 157, a delta of 18.5%. This is the biggest single percentage gap in the dataset and highlights the AMD part's clock speed advantage. The A12-9800's 4.20 GHz boost clock versus the i3-4170T's fixed 3.20 GHz gives it roughly a 31% clock advantage, which translates into an 18.5% benchmark lead after accounting for the Intel architecture's superior instructions-per-clock.

In multi-core workloads, the margin is slightly smaller but still decisive. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the A12-9800 at 316 versus 268 for the i3-4170T, a 17.9% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1318 versus 1120, a 17.7% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 3140 versus 2667, also a 17.7% gap. The consistency of these deltas across three different Cinebench versions indicates a stable performance relationship that does not change with workload intensity or benchmark iteration.

The i3-4170T has one additional benchmark result that the A12-9800 lacks: Geekbench scores of 1945 multi-core and 972 single-core. These results are not part of the head-to-head comparison because the A12-9800 has no corresponding Geekbench data. However, the i3-4170T's Geekbench single-core score of 972 versus its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 376 shows a different performance profile across benchmark suites, suggesting that the Intel chip's relative standing varies by workload type. Without matching Geekbench data for the AMD part, a direct comparison in that suite is not possible.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD A12-9800 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 316 in R15, 1318 in R20, and 3140 in R23, versus 268, 1120, and 2667 respectively for the Intel Core i3-4170T, representing a 17.7% to 17.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-4170T win any benchmark?

A: No. In the five head-to-head Cinebench tests recorded, the AMD A12-9800 wins all of them. The Intel part's only unique data point is its Geekbench scores of 1945 multi-core and 972 single-core, which have no AMD equivalent for comparison.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Core i3-4170T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the AMD A12-9800 has a TDP of 65 watts. This makes the Intel chip significantly more power-efficient, consuming nearly half the thermal budget of the AMD part.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The AMD A12-9800 supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i3-4170T supports DDR3 memory with dual-channel configuration and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these processors overclockable?

A: No. Both the AMD A12-9800 and the Intel Core i3-4170T have locked multipliers, so neither processor supports overclocking.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Core i3-4170T provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD A12-9800 provides only 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. This gives the Intel chip more bandwidth for expansion cards.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD A12-9800 outperforms the Intel Core i3-4170T in every measured Cinebench workload by a margin of roughly 18%. For users whose primary concern is CPU compute performance, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the AMD part is the correct choice. Its 4.20 GHz boost clock and 4 physical cores give it a decisive edge that the Intel chip's 3 MB of L3 cache and Hyper-Threading cannot overcome.

However, the Intel Core i3-4170T remains the better option for specific use cases that prioritize efficiency over throughput. Its 35-watt TDP is less than the AMD part's 65-watt TDP, making it suitable for passively cooled or ultra-compact systems where heat dissipation is critical. The Intel chip also offers double the CPU PCIe lanes (16 versus 8), which is beneficial for users planning to run multiple discrete GPUs or high-bandwidth PCIe devices. The i3-4170T's DDR3 memory support may also be an advantage for users upgrading an existing legacy platform, whereas the A12-9800 requires a newer DDR4-based AM4 motherboard.

The data suggests a clear trade-off: pick the AMD A12-9800 for raw compute performance and DDR4 memory bandwidth, or pick the Intel Core i3-4170T for lower power consumption and greater PCIe expandability. Neither chip is a universal winner, but for pure benchmark scores, the AMD A12-9800 is the superior processor. The Intel part's 30th percentile ranking and its position alongside the AMD Athlon X4 880K in its nearest rivals list indicate that it competes with older quad-core AMD parts, not with the A12-9800's class. The AMD A12-9800, meanwhile, sits alongside Intel Core i5-4440S and i5-2320 in its nearest rivals, showing that it delivers i5-level performance despite its lower-tier branding.