AMD A8-9600 vs AMD PRO A8-9600 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the AMD PRO A8-9600 and the AMD A8-9600?

A: The PRO variant records an average benchmark score of 971, while the standard A8-9600 scores 962. This places the PRO version about 0.9% higher on average.

Q: Which chip has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 achieves 398 points in Cinebench R23 single-core, versus 394 for the AMD A8-9600. That is a 1% advantage for the PRO version.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket and memory type?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket AM4 and support DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration. Both also have a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD A8-9600 wins?

A: No. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD PRO A8-9600 wins every one. The standard A8-9600 records zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for both chips?

A: Both processors contain 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process.

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

A: The PRO A8-9600 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U and Intel Core i5-2400S, and within 0.4% of the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130. The standard A8-9600 is within 0.5% of the Intel Celeron N5100 and within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, though modest, conclusion: the AMD PRO A8-9600 is the faster part in every recorded benchmark. The question is not which chip wins, but whether the margin matters. Across five Cinebench tests, the PRO version leads by margins ranging from 0.8% to 1.2%. These are small single-digit percentage differences, not generational leaps.

For users who prioritize the absolute highest score in the database, the AMD PRO A8-9600 is the pick. It wins every head-to-head test, and its average benchmark score of 971 is 9 points higher than the standard chip. The single-core advantage is consistent: 167 versus 165 in R20, and 398 versus 394 in R23. Multi-core tests show the same pattern, with the PRO version scoring 1184 versus 1174 in R20 multi-core.

However, for users who look at the broader competitive landscape, both chips occupy nearly identical positions. Both sit at the 26th percentile among all CPUs. The PRO A8-9600's nearest rivals include the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130, both at 975 points, a delta of -0.4%. The standard A8-9600's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T and Intel Core i3-4360T, both at 963 points. The performance gap between these two AM4 processors is smaller than the gap between either chip and its closest competitors.

The verdict depends on the use case. For a system where every benchmark point counts, the PRO A8-9600 is the superior choice. For a system where the difference of 9 average points is negligible, either chip will perform identically in practice. The data shows no scenario where the standard A8-9600 offers a performance advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all five recorded tests. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the PRO version scores 167 against 165, a 1.2% lead. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the PRO version scores 2820 against 2797, a 0.8% difference.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the PRO A8-9600 scores 284 while the standard A8-9600 scores 281, a 1.1% advantage. This test, while older, shows the same pattern as the newer R20 and R23 workloads. The consistency across generations of Cinebench suggests that the PRO version's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general property of the chip.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the PRO version at 1184 versus 1174, a 0.9% lead. Single-core R20 shows 167 versus 165, a 1.2% lead. These are the smallest absolute differences in the dataset, but they are consistent. The PRO version never trails, and the standard version never catches up.

The single-core results deserve particular attention. In both R20 and R23, the PRO version leads by 1% or more. This suggests that the PRO chip's advantage is not merely a matter of multi-core scaling but also of per-thread performance. For applications that rely heavily on single-threaded performance, the PRO version offers a measurable, if small, improvement.

The multi-core results show a slightly smaller margin, around 0.8% to 1.1%. This could indicate that the PRO version's advantage is more pronounced in lightly threaded workloads. However, the data does not include enough tests to confirm this pattern definitively. What is clear is that the PRO version wins every test, and the margins are consistent enough to rule out measurement noise as the sole explanation.

Specification Differences

On paper, these two chips are nearly identical. Both have 4 cores and 4 threads. Both have a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. Both have a TDP of 65 watts. Both use AMD Socket AM4. Both are built on the Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename. Both use a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die.

The cache configuration is identical: 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache. Memory support is the same, with DDR4 in dual-channel configuration and a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Neither chip supports ECC memory. Both have 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU. Both feature integrated Radeon R7 graphics. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The part numbers differ: the PRO version is AD960BAGM44AB, while the standard version is AD9600AGABBOXAD9600AGM44AB. The release dates also differ, with the PRO A8-9600 releasing on 2016-10-02 and the standard A8-9600 releasing on 2017-07-26. This is a notable difference, as the PRO version launched about nine months earlier.

There are no other specification differences in the recorded data. The two chips share every measurable specification except for part number and release date. This makes the benchmark differences particularly interesting, as they cannot be explained by clock speed, core count, cache size, or memory configuration.

Architecture Differences

The architecture data shows no differences between the two chips. Both use the Excavator architecture, both have the Bristol Ridge codename, and both belong to the A8 (Bristol Ridge) generation. The process node is 28 nm for both, produced by GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is 3,100 million for both, and the die size is 250 mm² for both.

Since the architecture is identical, the benchmark differences must stem from something not captured in the specification fields. The PRO designation may imply different binning or quality control, but the database does not record such details. The data only shows that the PRO version consistently scores slightly higher, despite having the same architectural parameters.

The lack of L3 cache is a shared architectural trait. Both chips rely on 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2. The memory subsystem is also identical, with dual-channel DDR4 support and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The integrated graphics are Radeon R7 for both, though the database does not record the specific graphics clock or shader count.

One architectural difference that may be relevant is the release date. The PRO version launched in October 2016, while the standard version launched in July 2017. It is possible that the PRO chip was manufactured on a more mature process, but the database does not provide evidence for this. The data simply records the same architecture with different release dates.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins in every benchmark category recorded. In single-core tests, it leads by 1.2% in R20 and 1% in R23. In multi-core tests, it leads by 1.1% in R15, 0.9% in R20, and 0.8% in R23. The standard A8-9600 wins zero tests.

For users running single-threaded applications, the PRO version offers a consistent, if small, advantage. The 1.2% lead in R20 single-core is the largest margin in the dataset. For users running multi-threaded workloads, the PRO version still leads, but the margin narrows to between 0.8% and 1.1%.

The standard A8-9600 does not have a single recorded win. This does not mean it is a poor processor; rather, it means that in the recorded data, it is always slightly behind. Its average benchmark score of 962 is within 1% of the PRO version's 971. In practical terms, both chips will feel identical in most workloads.

The PRO version's advantage is most useful in scenarios where every bit of performance matters, such as benchmark competitions or highly repetitive compute tasks. For general desktop use, the difference is negligible. The data suggests that the PRO designation comes with a small but real performance premium, likely due to better binning, though the database does not confirm this.

For users who already own the standard A8-9600, there is no reason to upgrade based on the data. The performance difference is under 1.2% in every test. For users choosing between the two, the PRO version is the better pick if the price is equal or if the user needs the maximum performance the platform can offer. Given that both chips share the same architecture, socket, and memory support, the decision comes down to the small benchmark advantage of the PRO version.