AMD A6-9400 vs Intel Core i3-3250T Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score, and by how much?

A: The AMD A6-9400 has an average benchmark score of 794, while the Intel Core i3-3250T scores 775. That puts the AMD part roughly 2.5% ahead on average, a difference that places them in the same performance tier.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The AMD A6-9400 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 232 versus the Intel's 226, a 2.6% lead. In R20 multi-core, the AMD posts 969 against 945, and in R23 multi-core, it scores 2309 versus 2252. The margin is consistent, hovering around 2.5%.

Q: Which processor has the better single-core performance?

A: The AMD A6-9400 also leads in single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 136 versus 133, and in R23 single-core, it scores 326 versus 318. Both deltas are 2.5% or less.

Q: How do their core and thread counts compare?

A: The Intel Core i3-3250T has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads. Despite having half the thread count, the AMD chip still edges out the Intel in every recorded benchmark.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two processors?

A: The Intel Core i3-3250T is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD A6-9400 is listed as active. The Intel was released in June 2013, and the AMD was released in March 2019.

Q: What percentile do both processors occupy among all CPUs?

A: Both are listed at the 21st percentile of all CPUs. This means they perform in the lower quarter of the database, but they are closely matched against each other.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD A6-9400 is the faster processor in every single benchmark recorded in the database. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 2.2% to 2.6%. The AMD chip's wins are consistent across both single-core and multi-core workloads, which suggests it has a fundamental performance advantage, not just in one specific task.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance, the AMD A6-9400 is the straightforward choice. The benchmark results show that it is ahead across the board, even though it has fewer threads (2) than the Intel (4). The AMD chip also benefits from a newer memory standard, DDR4, and a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz, boosting to 3.70 GHz. The Intel chip, by contrast, is a 2-core, 4-thread part with a fixed 3.00 GHz clock.

The Intel Core i3-3250T, however, is not without its merits. It has a significantly lower TDP at 35 watts versus the AMD's 65 watts, which makes it a more power-efficient part. It also has a smaller die size (94 mm² versus 250 mm²) and a much older release date. The Intel part is end-of-life, whereas the AMD part is still active, which might matter for long-term availability.

The verdict is that the AMD A6-9400 is the better performer for compute tasks, while the Intel i3-3250T is a lower-power option with a modest performance deficit. The choice depends on whether power consumption or raw benchmark score is the priority. Given that the AMD wins all tests and is newer, it appears to be the stronger overall pick.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD A6-9400 dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest relative win is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the AMD scores 232 against the Intel's 226, a 2.6% lead. This is the biggest delta in the entire comparison.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD scores 969 versus 945, a 2.5% lead. The R20 single-core test shows the AMD at 136 versus 133, a 2.2% lead, the smallest margin of the set. The R23 multi-core test has the AMD at 2309 versus 2252, again a 2.5% lead. Finally, the R23 single-core test shows the AMD at 326 versus 318, a 2.5% lead.

The pattern is remarkably consistent. All deltas fall between 2.2% and 2.6%, with no single test showing a dramatic outlier. This consistency indicates a steady, uniform performance advantage for the AMD chip across different rendering workloads. The Intel chip never gets close to winning a single test.

It is noteworthy that the Intel chip has Hyper-Threading (4 threads versus 2), yet it still loses in multi-core tests. This suggests the AMD's higher base clock (3.40 GHz) and higher boost clock (3.70 GHz) more than compensate for the thread count disparity. The data indicates that the AMD's architectural efficiency in this workload is superior, despite the apparent thread disadvantage.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is in the socket. The Intel uses LGA 1155, while the AMD uses Socket AM4. This is a fundamental incompatibility, and they cannot be used in the same motherboard.

The core and thread counts differ, with the Intel having 2 cores and 4 threads, and the AMD having 2 cores and 2 threads. The clocks also differ: the Intel has a fixed 3.00 GHz, while the AMD has a base of 3.40 GHz and a boost of 3.70 GHz.

The thermal design power differs significantly: the Intel is 35 watts, the AMD is 65 watts. The AMD consumes almost twice as much power, which is expected given its higher clock speeds.

Process node and foundry differ. The Intel is on 22 nm at Intel's foundry, while the AMD is on 28 nm at GlobalFoundries. The die size also differs: 94 mm² for the Intel, 250 mm² for the AMD.

PCIe lanes differ, with the Intel offering Gen 3, 16 Lanes, and the AMD offering Gen 3, 8 Lanes. Memory support differs too: the Intel uses DDR3, the AMD uses DDR4. The memory bandwidth is also different: 25.6 GB/s for the Intel, 38.4 GB/s for the AMD.

The integrated graphics differ: the Intel has HD 2500, the AMD has Radeon R5. Finally, the production status differs, with the Intel being end-of-life and the AMD being active. The release dates are far apart, June 2013 for the Intel and March 2019 for the AMD.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-3250T is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, using a 22 nm process. It has a 3 MB shared L3 cache, along with 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The Intel's design is a classic dual-core with Hyper-Threading, allowing 4 threads. It does not have a boost clock, remaining at 3.00 GHz.

The AMD A6-9400 is built on the Excavator architecture, using a 28 nm process, which is older and larger. It has 3,100 million transistors and a die size of 250 mm². The cache structure is different: it has 160 KB of L1 and 1 MB of shared L2 cache, with no L3 cache. It has 2 cores and 2 threads, no Hyper-Threading. It has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, which is a key advantage over the Intel's fixed clock.

The node difference is significant: 22 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for AMD. The Intel uses a more advanced process, but the AMD uses a newer architecture design. The lack of L3 cache on the AMD is a notable difference, which likely contributes to its lower memory latency, but the higher bandwidth (38.4 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s) helps compensate.

The AMD also has a higher transistor count (3,100 million) versus the Intel's unspecified count, but the Intel has a much smaller die (94 mm²). The AMD's larger die and more transistors are partly due to the integrated Radeon R5 graphics and the older process node.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A6-9400 wins in every single benchmark category recorded in the database. This includes both single-core and multi-core tests across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. For users prioritizing raw rendering performance, the AMD is the clear winner.

The Intel Core i3-3250T has no benchmark wins. Its strengths lie outside the recorded benchmarks. The data shows it has a much lower TDP of 35 watts, which makes it a lower-power option. It also has a smaller die size, which may be relevant for thermal and physical footprint considerations. The Intel also has a more advanced 22 nm process, which could translate to better efficiency per watt, but this is not directly reflected in the benchmark scores.

For specific use cases, the AMD is better for tasks like video rendering or 3D modeling, where multi-core scores directly translate to faster completion times. The Intel might be preferable for a low-power server or a basic desktop where maximum performance is not needed. The database shows the Intel has 4 threads, which could help with multitasking in lightweight workloads, but the AMD's higher clocks win in the tests.

The AMD also has a newer memory standard (DDR4) and higher memory bandwidth, which could benefit memory-hungry applications. The Intel's older DDR3 support is a limitation. The AMD is also still active, meaning it might be easier to purchase, while the Intel is end-of-life.

The verdict from the data is that the AMD wins on all performance metrics, while the Intel wins on power efficiency and a smaller die. For a user who values benchmark performance above all else, the AMD is the only choice. For a user who values low power consumption and a lower thermal output, the Intel might be the preferred option.