AMD A8-7680 vs Intel Core i3-4330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent picture across all five Cinebench tests: the AMD A8-7680 wins every single head-to-head matchup, though by margins that are uniformly narrow. The largest advantage appears in the single-core tests, where the AMD part leads by 1.7% in both Cinebench R20 and R23. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the A8-7680 scores 178 against the Core i3-4330's 175. The R23 single-core test shows the same 1.7% gap, with scores of 425 and 418 respectively. This consistency suggests the per-thread performance difference is stable across workloads, not a one-off anomaly.

The multicore results tell a similar story, albeit with slightly smaller margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the A8-7680 posts 303 versus 298, a 1.7% win. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 1264 against 1245, a 1.5% edge. The R23 multicore test repeats that 1.5% margin, with scores of 3011 and 2966. The AMD chip's four physical cores appear to give it a small but persistent advantage over the Intel part's two physical cores with four threads, even though Hyper-Threading narrows the gap considerably.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this pattern. The A8-7680 carries an average benchmark score of 1036, while the Core i3-4330 sits at 1020. That translates to a roughly 1.6% gap in the aggregate, which aligns neatly with the individual test deltas. Both processors land at the 28th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall. The differences here are measurable but not transformative; the A8-7680 is consistently ahead, yet the margin is the kind that would be imperceptible in everyday use.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests in this comparison?

A: The AMD A8-7680 wins all five head-to-head tests, covering Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore and single-core, and R23 multicore and single-core. The Intel Core i3-4330 does not win any of the recorded tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the closest test?

A: The tightest margins are 1.5% in Cinebench R20 multicore and R23 multicore, where the A8-7680 scores 1264 versus 1245, and 3011 versus 2966 respectively. The single-core tests all show a 1.7% gap.

Q: Do the two CPUs have the same overall standing in the database?

A: Yes, both are at the 28th percentile among all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are close as well: 1036 for the AMD A8-7680 versus 1020 for the Intel Core i3-4330.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor according to the database?

A: The A8-7680's nearest rival is the AMD A10-7890K with an average score of 1035, a 0.1% difference. The Core i3-4330's nearest rival is the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 at 1022, a 0.2% difference in the other direction.

Q: Does the Intel chip's higher thread count help it match the AMD chip?

A: The Core i3-4330 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the A8-7680 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite matching thread counts, the Intel part still trails in every recorded benchmark, with the smallest deficit being 1.5% in multicore workloads.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: Both processors run at a base clock of 3.50 GHz. The AMD A8-7680 also has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-4330 has no recorded boost clock.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A8-7680 wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is less about workload type and more about the size of the advantage. In single-threaded performance, the A8-7680 holds a 1.7% edge in both R20 and R23 tests. That makes it the better pick for lightly threaded applications where a single core does most of the work, such as older games or everyday productivity tasks that are not heavily parallelized. The margin is small, but it is consistent across two different Cinebench versions, which lends some confidence to the result.

In multi-threaded workloads, the A8-7680's lead narrows to 1.5% in both R20 and R23 multicore tests. This is where the Core i3-4330's Hyper-Threading does its heaviest lifting, compensating for having only two physical cores against the AMD chip's four. For rendering tasks that scale well with core counts, the A8-7680 still comes out ahead, but the difference is marginal enough that other system factors could easily flip the real-world outcome.

The Intel Core i3-4330's strengths do not show up in the benchmark scores, but its specification profile suggests different use cases. It has a much smaller die size at 177 mm² versus 250 mm², a lower transistor count at 1,400 million versus 3,100 million, and a lower thermal design power of 45 watts against 54 watts. The TDP figure is notable: the Intel chip actually draws more power at 54 watts, but its smaller die and older 22 nm process node could imply different thermal characteristics under load. The database does not record any benchmark wins for the Intel part, so its appeal rests entirely on platform and specification differences rather than measured performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on core configuration. The AMD A8-7680 offers 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4330 offers 2 cores and 4 threads. Both run at a 3.50 GHz base clock, but the AMD chip adds a 3.80 GHz boost clock, a feature the Intel part lacks entirely. Thermal design power also differs: the A8-7680 is rated at 45 watts, the Core i3-4330 at 54 watts.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The A8-7680 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache recorded. The Core i3-4330 has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Both support DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration, though the AMD part specifies a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s while the Intel part has no bandwidth figure recorded. Neither supports ECC memory, both use PCIe Gen 3, and both have locked multipliers.

The sockets are incompatible, which is expected given the different manufacturers. The A8-7680 uses AMD Socket FM2+, the Core i3-4330 uses Intel Socket 1150. Release dates are far apart: the Intel chip launched in August 2013, the AMD chip in October 2018. The production status for the AMD part is recorded as active, while no status is listed for the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational and physical. The AMD A8-7680 uses the Excavator architecture on the Carrizo codename, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-4330 uses the Haswell architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel, with 1,400 million transistors in a 177 mm² die. The Intel part is the older design by roughly five years, yet it achieves competitive performance with fewer transistors and a smaller die, a signal of the efficiency of its newer-at-the-time process node.

The cache strategies reflect different design philosophies. AMD provides a larger L1 cache at 320 KB and a modest 2 MB of L2, skipping L3 entirely. Intel provides smaller per-core L1 and L2 caches but compensates with a shared 4 MB L3 cache. This is a classic architectural tradeoff: AMD's approach favors faster access to local data, while Intel's larger L3 pool helps when working sets exceed the L2 capacity.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The A8-7680 carries a Radeon R7 GPU, while the Core i3-4330 has Intel HD 4600. The database does not record direct graphics benchmarks, but the architectural difference is significant for anyone planning to run without a discrete GPU. The AMD part's APU heritage suggests a stronger integrated graphics solution, though the data here does not quantify that advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow overall winner: the AMD A8-7680. It wins all five recorded Cinebench tests, holds a higher average benchmark score at 1036 versus 1020, and matches the Intel part's 28th percentile standing while edging ahead in every measured workload. The largest margins are 1.7% in single-core tests, the smallest are 1.5% in multicore tests. For anyone prioritizing raw measured performance in these specific workloads, the A8-7680 is the safer choice.

The Intel Core i3-4330 is not without arguments in its favor, but those arguments live outside the benchmark results. Its 4 MB of shared L3 cache could benefit certain access patterns, its smaller die and lower transistor count suggest a more efficient design, and its 22 nm process node is denser than AMD's 28 nm. None of these translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data, though. The Intel part also carries a higher TDP at 54 watts versus 45 watts, which undercuts any efficiency narrative based on the specification sheet alone.

The choice between these two depends on platform fit and tolerance for the performance delta. The A8-7680 is the better performer in every recorded test, so users on an FM2+ platform have no reason to switch to the older Intel platform for performance gains. Conversely, someone already on Socket 1150 with a Haswell-era board would see only marginal improvements, roughly 1.5% to 1.7%, by moving to the AMD part. The database presents a case of near-parity, where the AMD chip wins on merit but the Intel chip remains viable based on existing platform investment. Neither processor is a clear upgrade over the other in any meaningful sense; the A8-7680 simply does everything a little bit better.