AMD A8-6600K vs Intel Core i3-3240 Comparison

# AMD A8-6600K vs Intel Core i3-3240

The AMD A8-6600K and Intel Core i3-3240 are two desktop processors from the early 2010s that took fundamentally different approaches to the same problem. The AMD part is a quad-core Piledriver chip with a high base clock and unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is a dual-core Ivy Bridge design with Hyper-Threading, a smaller process node, and a more efficient architecture. The benchmark database shows the Intel Core i3-3240 winning both recorded head-to-head tests, but the AMD A8-6600K remains competitive in the aggregate, with an average benchmark score of 764 against the Intel chip's 761. The data indicates a near-tie in overall performance, with a delta of just 0.5 percent in favor of the AMD part, but the nature of those wins matters more than the aggregate.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-3240 takes the clear lead in the two benchmark categories recorded for both processors. In Geekbench multicore, the Intel chip scores 1233 against the AMD A8-6600K's 1076, a delta of 12.7 percent. In Geekbench singlecore, the gap widens considerably: Intel scores 650, AMD scores 451, and the delta reaches 30.6 percent. These are substantial margins, particularly in single-threaded workloads, where the Intel architecture's efficiency advantage becomes pronounced.

The AMD A8-6600K, however, does not win any of the recorded head-to-head tests. Its wins are structural rather than benchmark-based. The AMD part offers four physical cores at a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, making it a strong candidate for workloads that scale with raw core count and clock speed. The processor also features an unlocked multiplier, which allows for manual overclocking, a capability the Intel Core i3-3240 lacks entirely. The Intel chip is locked at a 3.40 GHz base clock with no boost, so users seeking frequency headroom would naturally gravitate toward the AMD part.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The Intel Core i3-3240 is the better choice for single-threaded performance, everyday responsiveness, and any application that relies on a strong per-core showing. The AMD A8-6600K, with its four cores, unlocked multiplier, and higher clocks, suits users who plan to overclock, run multi-threaded software that can use four threads, or want the flexibility of tuning the processor to their own thermal and power constraints.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The AMD A8-6600K is built on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Richland, and manufactured on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The chip contains 1,303 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-3240 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process at Intel, with a die size of just 94 mm². The process node difference is significant: Intel's 22 nm process allows for a much smaller die and lower power consumption.

Core and thread counts differ as well. The AMD A8-6600K has four physical cores and four threads, with no Hyper-Threading equivalent. The Intel Core i3-3240 has two physical cores and four threads, using Hyper-Threading to present four logical processors. The AMD part's base clock is 3.90 GHz with a boost up to 4.20 GHz, while the Intel part runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz with no boost capability.

Cache configurations also diverge. The AMD A8-6600K has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The Intel Core i3-3240 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The presence of L3 cache on the Intel part is notable, as it provides a shared pool for the two physical cores and their Hyper-Threaded siblings.

Memory support is similar on both platforms: each supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The AMD A8-6600K lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Intel part does not have a recorded bandwidth figure in the database. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe support differs. The AMD A8-6600K uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel Core i3-3240 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU. The integrated graphics also differ: the AMD part includes a Radeon HD 8570D, while the Intel part includes Intel HD 2500. The AMD chip's TDP is 100 watts, substantially higher than the Intel chip's 55 watts, reflecting the larger die and higher clocks.

The AMD A8-6600K uses the AMD Socket FM2, while the Intel Core i3-3240 uses Intel Socket 1155. The AMD part is end-of-life, while the Intel part's production status is not recorded. The AMD chip was released on May 31, 2013, and the Intel chip on September 2, 2012.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these processors, and the Intel Core i3-3240 wins both.

In Geekbench multicore, the Intel Core i3-3240 scores 1233 against the AMD A8-6600K's 1076. This represents a 12.7 percent advantage for the Intel part. The result is notable because the AMD chip has four physical cores and a higher clock speed, yet the Intel chip still manages to outperform it in a multi-threaded test. The Intel chip's Hyper-Threading, combined with its more efficient Ivy Bridge architecture and shared L3 cache, compensates for the two-core deficit.

In Geekbench singlecore, the margin is far larger. The Intel Core i3-3240 scores 650, while the AMD A8-6600K scores 451. The delta is 30.6 percent in favor of the Intel part. This is a decisive gap and reflects the fundamental architectural difference between the two designs. The Intel chip's per-core performance is substantially higher, likely due to the newer process node, superior instruction handling, and the benefits of a smaller, more efficient die.

The aggregate benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The AMD A8-6600K has an average benchmark score of 764, while the Intel Core i3-3240 sits at 761. The delta between the two is 0.5 percent in favor of the AMD part. This aggregate includes the AMD chip's Geekbench results, which are lower, but the average appears to incorporate other benchmark data not listed in the head-to-head table. The Intel Core i3-3240 also has additional Cinebench scores recorded, including Cinebench R15 multicore at 201, Cinebench R20 multicore at 840, Cinebench R20 singlecore at 118, Cinebench R23 multicore at 2000, and Cinebench R23 singlecore at 282. These additional scores contribute to its average and demonstrate strength across a range of rendering workloads.

In terms of nearest rivals, the AMD A8-6600K sits at a 20th percentile versus all CPUs, and its closest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3537U with an average score of 766 and a delta of -0.3 percent, the Intel Core i3-3240 itself with a delta of 0.5 percent, the Intel Core i5-3210M at 758 with a delta of 0.8 percent, and the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757 with a delta of 0.9 percent. The Intel Core i3-3240 also sits at the 20th percentile, with its nearest rivals including the AMD A8-6600K at a delta of -0.3 percent, the Intel Core i5-3210M at 758 with a delta of 0.4 percent, the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757 with a delta of 0.5 percent, and the Intel Xeon E5450 at 756 with a delta of 0.6 percent. Both processors occupy essentially the same performance tier, with the AMD part marginally ahead in aggregate.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 is significantly faster in single-core performance. In Geekbench singlecore, it scores 650 against the AMD A8-6600K's 451, a 30.6 percent advantage.

Q: Does the AMD A8-6600K win any benchmark against the Intel Core i3-3240?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD A8-6600K does not win any test. The Intel Core i3-3240 wins both Geekbench multicore and Geekbench singlecore.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two?

A: The AMD A8-6600K has an average benchmark score of 764, while the Intel Core i3-3240 has an average score of 761. The delta is 0.5 percent in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Can the AMD A8-6600K be overclocked?

A: Yes, the AMD A8-6600K has an unlocked multiplier, which allows for manual overclocking. The Intel Core i3-3240 does not have an unlocked multiplier and is locked at a 3.40 GHz base clock.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD A8-6600K has four physical cores and four threads. The Intel Core i3-3240 has two physical cores and four threads, using Hyper-Threading to reach four logical processors.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The AMD A8-6600K has a TDP of 100 watts, while the Intel Core i3-3240 has a TDP of 55 watts.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core i3-3240 is the stronger performer in the recorded benchmarks, winning both Geekbench tests by substantial margins. The 30.6 percent single-core advantage is particularly decisive, and the 12.7 percent multi-core lead demonstrates that Hyper-Threading on two Ivy Bridge cores can outperform four Piledriver cores at higher clocks. For users prioritizing out-of-the-box performance, especially in single-threaded applications, the Intel Core i3-3240 is the data-backed choice.

The AMD A8-6600K, however, offers a different value proposition. Its unlocked multiplier, four physical cores, and higher base and boost clocks make it a candidate for overclocking enthusiasts. The aggregate benchmark scores place the two processors within 0.5 percent of each other, indicating that the AMD part is not far behind in overall performance. The AMD chip's higher TDP of 100 watts versus 55 watts suggests it requires more power, but that power budget buys clock headroom and overclocking flexibility.

The choice depends on the workload. For single-threaded tasks, everyday computing, and applications that favor per-core efficiency, the Intel Core i3-3240 is the better option based on the recorded data. For users who plan to overclock, run multi-threaded software, or prefer the AMD platform's features, the A8-6600K remains a viable alternative, with the aggregate scores showing the two processors are effectively peers. The Intel chip wins the benchmark war, but the AMD chip wins on flexibility and raw core count.