AMD A8-9600 vs Intel Core i3-4150T Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data divides cleanly along manufacturer lines. The AMD A8-9600 wins every recorded head-to-head test, taking all five Cinebench comparisons across R15, R20, and R23 workloads. The Intel Core i3-4150T does not win a single benchmark in the comparison set. This is a decisive sweep, but the margins tell a more nuanced story about what each processor does well.

Looking at the database's recorded measurements, the AMD A8-9600 holds a consistent advantage in both multi-core and single-core workloads. Its largest edge comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 165 against the Intel part's 143, a 13.3% difference. The same 13.3% gap appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with scores of 1174 versus 1018. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: the AMD chip scores 2797 multi-core and 394 single-core, while the Intel chip scores 2425 and 342 respectively. Even the oldest test in the set, Cinebench R15 multi-core, shows the AMD part ahead at 281 versus 244, a 13.2% margin.

The Intel Core i3-4150T does have one notable measurement that is not part of the head-to-head set: a Geekbench multi-core score of 1762 and a single-core score of 892. These figures exist only for the Intel processor, so they cannot be compared directly to the AMD part, but they do indicate the i3-4150T is a functional desktop processor in its own right.

The database places both processors at the 26th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall. The AMD A8-9600 has an average benchmark score of 962, while the Intel Core i3-4150T averages 975. That 13-point difference in the AMD part's favor is small, roughly 1.3%, yet it is enough to shift the average in the opposite direction of the head-to-head results. The Intel chip's average is buoyed by its Geekbench scores, which are not mirrored in the AMD data.

For use-case planning, the AMD A8-9600 is the stronger choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or multi-threaded processing. The Intel Core i3-4150T, despite fewer physical cores, still posts competitive scores in the same tests, trailing by roughly 13% across the board. Neither processor is a performance leader, but the data consistently favors the AMD part in every measured comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD A8-9600 scores 2797 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core i3-4150T scores 2425. The AMD part leads by 13.3%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The AMD A8-9600 leads in both recorded single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 165 versus 143 (13.3% ahead). In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 394 versus 342 (13.2% ahead).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The Intel Core i3-4150T supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD A8-9600 supports DDR4 memory. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, a figure not listed for the Intel part.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-4150T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD A8-9600 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite having half the physical cores, the Intel part uses Hyper-Threading (implied by the thread count) to reach 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4150T has an average benchmark score of 975, while the AMD A8-9600 averages 962. This is a 1.3% difference in the Intel part's favor, despite losing all head-to-head Cinebench tests.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Intel Core i3-4150T wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmark set, the Intel Core i3-4150T wins zero tests. The AMD A8-9600 wins all five comparisons. The Intel part does have Geekbench scores (1762 multi-core, 892 single-core) that are not part of the head-to-head set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern: the AMD A8-9600 beats the Intel Core i3-4150T by roughly 13% in every Cinebench test. The smallest margin is 13.2%, recorded in Cinebench R15 multi-core (281 versus 244) and Cinebench R23 single-core (394 versus 342). The largest margin is 13.3%, appearing in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1174 versus 1018), Cinebench R20 single-core (165 versus 143), and Cinebench R23 multi-core (2797 versus 2425).

The most striking result is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD part scores 2797, a full 372 points ahead of the Intel chip's 2425. In percentage terms, that is the same 13.3% gap seen elsewhere, but the raw point difference is the largest in the entire comparison. This suggests the AMD A8-9600 scales better with sustained multi-threaded workloads, despite both processors having 4 threads.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. The AMD A8-9600 posts 165 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 394 in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Intel Core i3-4150T trails at 143 and 342 respectively. The consistent 13.2% to 13.3% delta across both single and multi-core tests indicates the AMD part has a uniform clock-for-clock advantage, likely tied to its higher base clock of 3.10 GHz versus the Intel part's 2.90 GHz.

The Intel Core i3-4150T does have a Geekbench multi-core score of 1762, which is not part of the head-to-head set. If we compare that to the AMD part's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2797, the numbers are not directly comparable due to different test methodologies. The database records them under different test names, so any cross-test comparison would be speculative.

What the data does show clearly is that the AMD A8-9600 wins all five recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel part's Geekbench scores, while respectable, do not appear in the head-to-head set, so they cannot offset the AMD part's sweep. The nearest rivals for the Intel chip include the AMD Athlon X4 840, Intel Core i3-4130, and AMD A10-7870K, all with an average score of 975, matching the i3-4150T exactly. The AMD A8-9600's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T and Intel Core i3-4360T, both at 963, just 1 point above the AMD part's 962 average.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Core i3-4150T uses 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD A8-9600 uses 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part has twice the physical cores but no additional threads beyond its core count, while the Intel part uses its 4 threads to match the AMD part's thread count.

Clock speeds also differ. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.90 GHz with no boost clock recorded. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, giving it a higher operating frequency at both idle and load states. This clock advantage likely explains the AMD part's consistent lead in single-core tests.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The Intel Core i3-4150T fits Intel Socket 1150, while the AMD A8-9600 uses AMD Socket AM4. These are not interchangeable platforms, so the motherboard choice dictates which processor can be used. The Intel part belongs to the Haswell architecture, while the AMD part uses Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename.

Memory support diverges as well. The Intel part supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD part supports DDR4 memory. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, a figure not listed for the Intel part. The AMD part also has more transistors (3,100 million versus 1,400 million) and a larger die size (250 mm² versus 177 mm²), reflecting its older 28 nm process node compared to Intel's 22 nm node.

The integrated graphics differ: the Intel part includes Intel HD 4400, while the AMD part includes Radeon R7. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either platform. The AMD part has a recorded part number (AD9600AGABBOXAD9600AGM44AB) and is marked as Active in production status, while the Intel part has no production status recorded. The release dates are also different, with the Intel part released in 2014 and the AMD part in 2017.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is significant. The Intel Core i3-4150T is built on the Haswell architecture using a 22 nm process node at Intel's foundry. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The cache hierarchy is per-core for L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core), with 3 MB of shared L3 cache. This design prioritizes low latency and efficient single-thread execution, typical of Intel's Haswell generation.

The AMD A8-9600 uses the Excavator architecture, built on a 28 nm process node at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, more than double the transistor count of the Intel part. The cache layout is different: 320 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache, and no L3 cache recorded. This reflects AMD's approach of relying on larger L2 caches rather than a shared L3 pool.

The memory controllers differ as well. The Intel part supports DDR3, while the AMD part supports DDR4. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is rated at 38.4 GB/s, a figure that leverages the higher data rates of DDR4. The Intel part has no memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database, though its DDR3 support implies lower theoretical bandwidth.

PCIe capabilities are similar but not identical. Both support PCIe Gen 3, but the AMD part specifies 8 lanes for the CPU only, while the Intel part lists no lane count. This suggests the Intel part may offer more PCIe lanes, though the database does not confirm this.

The integrated graphics units come from different vendors and generations. The Intel HD 4400 is a modest integrated solution from the Haswell era. The Radeon R7 in the AMD part is a more substantial integrated GPU, consistent with AMD's strategy of pairing stronger graphics with their APU line. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier, meaning the boost clock on the AMD part (3.40 GHz) is the maximum achievable without external overclocking.

The release dates reflect a three-year gap: the Intel part debuted in 2014, the AMD part in 2017. This explains the architectural differences, as Haswell was a mature design by the time Bristol Ridge launched. The AMD part is marked as Active in production status, while the Intel part has no such designation, suggesting the i3-4150T may be discontinued. The AMD part also has a recorded part number, while the Intel part does not, further indicating a difference in product lifecycle management.

The transistor density tells a story of process node evolution. Intel's 22 nm node packs 1,400 million transistors into 177 mm², yielding a density of roughly 7.9 million transistors per square millimeter. AMD's 28 nm node packs 3,100 million transistors into 250 mm², yielding about 12.4 million per square millimeter. The higher transistor count on the AMD part does not translate into higher benchmark scores, as the Intel part's average score (975) slightly exceeds the AMD part's (962). This suggests the Intel architecture extracts more performance per transistor, despite the AMD part having more than double the transistor budget.