CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4360T and AMD A8-9600 are separated by a razor-thin margin in overall performance, with the data showing an average benchmark score of 963 for the Intel part against 962 for the AMD part. The head-to-head results across all five Cinebench tests favor the Intel chip, but the largest winning margin is just 0.4%, a statistical tie in real-world terms. Both processors sit at the 26th percentile of all CPUs, placing them in the entry-level desktop segment where the choice often comes down to platform features rather than raw compute power.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows the Intel Core i3-4360T taking a clean sweep across all five recorded Cinebench tests, though the margins are almost imperceptibly small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 282 against 281 for the AMD A8-9600, a delta of only 0.4%. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i3-4360T posts 1175 versus 1174 for the A8-9600, a 0.1% advantage.

Single-core results are equally close. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both processors score exactly 165, with the delta registering at 0%, the Intel part is declared the winner on a tie, but there is no measurable difference. Cinebench R23 shows the same story: the i3-4360T scores 395 in single-core against 394 for the A8-9600, a 0.3% edge, and 2799 versus 2797 in multi-core, a 0.1% margin.

The nearest rival data reinforces how close these two parts are. The AMD A8-9600 lists the Intel Core i3-4360T as its direct competitor with a delta of -0.1%, meaning the AMD chip trails by one-tenth of one percent on average. The Intel side shows the same relationship from the opposite direction, with a +0.1% delta over the AMD part. For context, the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T scores 963, matching the i3-4360T exactly, while the Intel Celeron N5100 scores 966 and the Intel Xeon X5570 scores 967.

What this means in practice is that neither chip offers a meaningful performance advantage in CPU-bound workloads. The Intel i3-4360T wins all five head-to-head tests, but winning by 0.1% to 0.4% is effectively a draw. A benchmark run that is slightly noisy could easily flip any of these results. The data does not show either processor being faster in a way that would matter for daily use.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-4360T is built on the Haswell architecture using a 22 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the AMD A8-9600 uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel chip packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die, whereas the AMD chip contains 3,100 million transistors across a larger 250 mm² die.

Core configuration is where the architectures diverge most visibly. The Intel i3-4360T has 2 physical cores with 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to handle four concurrent threads. The AMD A8-9600 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multi-threading. Despite having half the physical core count, the Intel part matches the AMD chip in multi-threaded benchmarks, the data shows 282 versus 281 in Cinebench R15 and 2799 versus 2797 in Cinebench R23. This suggests the Intel cores deliver substantially more work per clock.

Cache layouts also differ. The Intel processor has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 320 KB of total L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The lack of L3 cache on the AMD side is notable because the Intel chip can keep more working data closer to the cores.

Memory support is another major split. The Intel i3-4360T supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus, while the AMD A8-9600 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth rating of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel part connects via PCIe Gen 3, as does the AMD chip, but the AMD A8-9600 only provides 8 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ as well: Intel HD 4600 on the i3-4360T versus Radeon R7 on the A8-9600.

The process node difference is significant for power characteristics. The Intel chip is rated at 35 W TDP, while the AMD part draws 65 W. That is a 30 W gap, which the data directly attributes to the architecture and process differences rather than performance levels.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a simple conclusion: choose based on platform needs, not CPU performance. The Intel Core i3-4360T wins every recorded head-to-head test, but the largest margin is 0.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. Both chips sit at the 26th percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by 1 point out of roughly 963. No workload in the data shows either processor pulling ahead in a way that would be perceptible.

The AMD A8-9600 makes sense for a build that needs DDR4 memory support and a modern AM4 socket with PCIe Gen 3 connectivity. The Intel i3-4360T makes sense for a low-power build on Intel Socket 1150, where the 35 W TDP is a substantial advantage over the AMD part's 65 W rating. The Intel chip also offers 4 MB of shared L3 cache, which the AMD part lacks entirely.

For users who care about single-threaded responsiveness, the data shows a dead heat: 165 versus 165 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 395 versus 394 in Cinebench R23 single-core. For multi-threaded workloads, the Intel chip's 2 cores with 4 threads match the AMD chip's 4 physical cores almost exactly. The Intel part's 0.1% to 0.4% advantages are within run-to-run variance.

The production status for both parts is listed as Active, meaning either is still a viable purchase depending on what platform you already have or plan to build. The AMD part offers a boost clock up to 3.40 GHz from a base of 3.10 GHz, while the Intel chip runs at a fixed 3.20 GHz with no boost. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T edges out the AMD A8-9600 in every recorded multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 2799 against 2797 for the AMD chip, a 0.1% difference. The Cinebench R15 result is 282 versus 281, a 0.4% margin.

Q: Does the AMD A8-9600 have an advantage in physical core count?

A: Yes, the AMD A8-9600 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4360T has only 2 physical cores but 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. Despite this, the Intel chip matches or slightly beats the AMD part in all multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus. The AMD A8-9600 supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth rating of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T has a TDP of 35 W, while the AMD A8-9600 has a TDP of 65 W. The Intel chip draws substantially less power per the data.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD A8-9600 has 320 KB of total L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache listed.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Intel Core i3-4360T uses Intel Socket 1150, while the AMD A8-9600 uses AMD Socket AM4. They are not interchangeable.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-4360T wins all five head-to-head benchmark tests, but the margins are so small that the practical takeaway is different. The Intel chip's real advantage shows in power efficiency: 35 W TDP versus 65 W for the AMD part. That makes the i3-4360T the better choice for a compact or low-noise build where heat and power draw matter more than raw performance. The Intel part also has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, which can help in workloads that repeatedly access a working set of data.

The AMD A8-9600 wins on platform modernity. It uses the AM4 socket and supports DDR4 memory, which the data shows as a 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth rating. The AMD chip also has 4 physical cores rather than 2, which may be preferable in scenarios where physical core count matters for software licensing or thread scheduling, though the benchmark data shows no performance benefit from those extra cores. The AMD part's integrated Radeon R7 graphics may also be more capable than Intel HD 4600, though no graphics benchmarks are provided in the data.

For a new build in 2024, the AMD A8-9600's AM4 platform offers a clearer upgrade path and DDR4 support. For a system where the motherboard and DDR3 memory are already on hand, the Intel i3-4360T is the lower-power option with a 0.1% to 0.4% performance edge. Neither chip is a performance winner; the data shows them as near-duplicates in compute capability, with the decision resting on socket, memory type, and power budget.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-4360T | AMD A8-9600 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores / Threads | 2 / 4 | 4 / 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Excavator |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 | Radeon R7 |

| Release Date | 2014-07-20 | 2017-07-26 |

| Part Number | Not listed | AD9600AGABBOXAD9600AGM44AB |