CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-3320M and AMD A6-9400 are two very different processors separated by nearly seven years of architecture, but their benchmark scores place them in an unusually tight battle. The data shows a consistent, though narrow, edge for the AMD part across every shared test, yet the Intel chip counters with a feature set that changes how those scores should be read. This comparison is a classic case of raw performance parity meeting divergent platform priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD A6-9400 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are slim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the A6-9400 scores 232 against the i5-3320M’s 227, a difference of just 2.2%. That pattern holds through Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the AMD part posts 969 versus 948, again a 2.2% lead. The single-core results tell the same story: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the A6-9400 edges ahead 136 to 133, and in R23 single-core it leads 326 to 318, a slightly larger 2.5% gap.

The most substantial delta appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the A6-9400 scores 2309 against 2258 for the Intel, a 2.2% advantage. That is the widest absolute point spread in the entire comparison, yet it still amounts to only 51 points. What is notable is that the Intel part achieves these near-parity scores despite being a 2-core/4-thread mobile chip with a 2.60 GHz base clock, while the AMD part is a 2-core/2-thread desktop chip running at 3.40 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The i5-3320M’s Hyper-Threading allows it to present 4 threads to the workload, which helps close the gap against the AMD’s higher raw clock speed.

Both processors sit at the bottom of the overall CPU performance distribution. The i5-3320M lands at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 803. The A6-9400 is marginally lower at the 21st percentile, with an average score of 794. This means that while the head-to-head deltas are small, both chips are firmly entry-level in the broader market. The i5-3320M’s nearest rivals include the AMD A10-7700K (801 average score, 0.2% difference) and the Intel Xeon E5530 (801, 0.3% difference), while the A6-9400 sits near the AMD A10-5800B (794, 0.1% difference) and the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (790, 0.5% difference). These rival clusters confirm that both chips occupy the same performance tier, despite their architectural differences.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the AMD A6-9400 is the faster processor. It wins every single head-to-head test, and while the margins are small, they are consistent. Anyone choosing purely on multi-core and single-core rendering scores should take the A6-9400. However, the i5-3320M is not without its own arguments. It is a mobile chip with a 35 W TDP, whereas the A6-9400 is a desktop chip with a 65 W TDP. The Intel part is designed for laptops and compact systems, while the AMD part is meant for desktop boards with more thermal headroom.

The i5-3320M also brings 4 threads to the table, which can matter in scenarios that benefit from additional thread scheduling, even if the raw scores do not reflect a decisive advantage. The data shows the AMD part is 2.2% faster in multi-core workloads, but that is a margin that many users would not notice in everyday use. For a builder deciding between these two, the choice comes down to platform and power constraints, not performance supremacy. If you need a low-power mobile chip, the i5-3320M is the only option. If you are building a budget desktop and can tolerate 65 W, the A6-9400 offers slightly better performance across the board.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A6-9400 wins every benchmark category in the data, but the context matters. It leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core (232 vs 227), R20 multi-core (969 vs 948), R20 single-core (136 vs 133), R23 multi-core (2309 vs 2258), and R23 single-core (326 vs 318). This makes it the clear choice for anyone running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.40 GHz and 3.70 GHz versus 2.60 GHz and 3.30 GHz) give it a clock-speed advantage that translates directly into these wins.

The Intel i5-3320M, despite losing all head-to-head tests, wins in the power efficiency and mobility category. Its 35 W TDP is nearly half the AMD part’s 65 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or embedded systems where heat and battery life are critical. It also supports dual-channel memory, as does the AMD part, but the Intel chip’s 3 MB shared L3 cache provides a larger cache pool than the AMD’s 1 MB shared L2. While the AMD part has more total cache (160 KB L1 plus 1 MB L2), the Intel’s L3 design may benefit certain workloads that access large data sets repeatedly. The i5-3320M also features Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, while the A6-9400 features Radeon R5, though the data does not provide graphics benchmarks to compare them.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD A6-9400 wins all multi-core tests. It scores 232 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 227 for the i5-3320M, and 2309 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 2258. The margin is consistently around 2.2%.

Q: Does the Intel i5-3320M have any performance advantage?

A: No. The i5-3320M loses all five head-to-head benchmarks. Its closest result is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it trails by just 2.2%, but it does not win any test.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The i5-3320M has a 35 W TDP, while the A6-9400 has a 65 W TDP. This makes the Intel chip significantly more power-efficient, which is expected given that it is a mobile processor.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i5-3320M has an average benchmark score of 803, placing it within 0.3% of the AMD A10-7700K (801) and Intel Xeon E5530 (801). The A6-9400 averages 794, within 0.5% of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (790).

Q: Which chip supports DDR4 memory?

A: Only the AMD A6-9400 lists DDR4 memory support, with a dual-channel memory bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel i5-3320M does not list specific memory support in the data.

Q: What are the thread counts for each processor?

A: The i5-3320M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Intel chip’s Hyper-Threading allows it to process 4 threads simultaneously, which helps it stay competitive despite lower clock speeds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies and eras. The Intel Core i5-3320M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture using a 22 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It has a die size of 118 mm² and features a cache structure of 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD A6-9400 uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process node fabricated by GlobalFoundries. Its die is significantly larger at 250 mm² and contains 3,100 million transistors. Its cache layout is different: 160 KB L1 total and 1 MB shared L2, with no L3 cache present.

The Intel chip is a mobile part designed for the Intel BGA 1023 socket, while the AMD chip is a desktop part for AMD Socket AM4. The Intel part belongs to the Core i5 generation (Ivy Bridge), released in May 2012, while the AMD part is from the A6 generation (Bristol Ridge), released in March 2019. The AMD chip is still in active production, whereas the Intel chip’s production status is not listed. The AMD part supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and it includes PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Intel chip lists dual-channel memory support but no specific memory type or bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show a clear split between the two. The i5-3320M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clocks differ: the Intel runs at 2.60 GHz, the AMD at 3.40 GHz. Boost clocks also favor AMD: 3.30 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. The TDP is a major differentiator, with the Intel at 35 W and the AMD at 65 W. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1023 versus AMD Socket AM4. The process nodes are 22 nm for Intel and 28 nm for AMD. The cache structures are entirely different: Intel uses 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3; AMD uses 160 KB L1 total and 1 MB shared L2 with no L3. The Intel chip is from the Ivy Bridge architecture with a die size of 118 mm², while the AMD chip is from the Excavator architecture with a larger 250 mm² die containing 3,100 million transistors. The integrated graphics differ as well: Intel HD 4000 on the i5-3320M versus Radeon R5 on the A6-9400. The market segments are also divergent: the Intel is a mobile chip, the AMD is a desktop chip. The AMD part supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes, while the Intel part does not list these specifications. Finally, the release dates are separated by nearly seven years, with the Intel launching in May 2012 and the AMD in March 2019.