AMD Athlon PRO 200GE vs Intel Core i5-3330 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: Both the Intel Core i5-3330 and the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE have identical average benchmark scores of 1200. Their percentile rankings against all CPUs are also tied at 34, indicating they perform at the same level overall.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-3330 scores 3486 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE scores 3243. The Intel chip leads by 7.5%, which is a meaningful but not overwhelming advantage.

Q: Does the AMD chip win in any head-to-head benchmark comparison?

A: No. Across all five Cinebench tests listed in the head-to-head comparison, the Intel Core i5-3330 wins every single one. The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE records zero wins in this matchup.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R20?

A: The Intel Core i5-3330 scores 206 in Cinebench R20 single-core, versus 191 for the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE. The Intel lead is 7.9%, which is the largest single-test margin in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What memory technologies do these processors support?

A: The Intel Core i5-3330 supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE supports DDR4. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the AMD chip has a listed memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-3330 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, whereas the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE has 2 physical cores and 4 threads. Both chips support simultaneous multi-threading on their available cores.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-3330 is built on Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture using a 22 nm process node, fabricated by Intel with a die size of 133 mm². It is a 4-core, 4-thread desktop processor with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The chip uses the Intel Socket 1155 platform and is part of the Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) generation.

The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE employs AMD's Zen architecture (specifically the Raven Ridge variant) on a 14 nm process node, manufactured by GlobalFoundries. This chip integrates 4,800 million transistors on a 192 mm² die, making it substantially larger than the Intel part. It offers 2 cores and 4 threads with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and no boost clock. The AMD chip uses the AMD Socket AM4 platform and is positioned in the server/workstation market segment.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly between the two. The Intel processor has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the AMD side compensate for its smaller L3 pool.

Integrated graphics also set these chips apart. The Intel Core i5-3330 includes Intel HD 2500 graphics, while the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE ships with Radeon Vega 3 graphics. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Intel chip offers Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while the AMD part provides Gen 3 with only 4 CPU lanes. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

The Intel chip carries a TDP of 77 W, while the AMD processor draws just 35 W. The AMD part is marked as end-of-life production status, and it was released in September 2018, roughly six years after the Intel chip's September 2012 launch.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i5-3330 sweeps all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 351 against the AMD's 326, a 7.7% advantage. The same pattern emerges in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where Intel leads 1464 to 1362, a 7.5% gap.

Single-core tests show a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel chip scores 206 versus 191 for the AMD, delivering a 7.9% win — the largest margin across all test comparisons. Cinebench R23 single-core follows with Intel at 492 and AMD at 457, a 7.7% difference.

Cinebench R23 multi-core results mirror the other multi-core tests almost exactly. Intel scores 3486, AMD scores 3243, and the delta is 7.5%. Across all five tests, the Intel chip wins by margins between 7.5% and 7.9%, showing remarkable consistency in its performance advantage.

The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE does have benchmark data that is not part of the head-to-head set. It records a Geekbench multi-core score of 1887 and a single-core score of 932. These figures are not compared against Intel equivalents, so they do not affect the head-to-head outcome.

Both processors share the same average benchmark score of 1200 and the same 34th percentile ranking against all CPUs. The nearest rival data for both chips is identical: the AMD Ryzen 3 2200G sits at 1202 average score with a -0.2% delta, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B is at 1196 with a 0.4% delta, and the AMD Opteron 3365 is at 1194 with a 0.5% delta.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core i5-3330 uses 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE uses 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are close — 3.00 GHz for Intel versus 3.20 GHz for AMD — but the Intel chip adds a 3.20 GHz boost clock, while the AMD chip has no boost capability at all.

TDP is a major differentiator: Intel draws 77 W versus AMD's 35 W, representing a 42 W difference in power envelope. Socket compatibility also separates them, with Intel on Socket 1155 and AMD on Socket AM4. The process nodes differ by a generation, with Intel at 22 nm and AMD at 14 nm, and the foundries differ (Intel versus GlobalFoundries).

Cache layouts are distinct. Intel provides 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, while AMD offers 96 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core. Shared L3 favors Intel at 6 MB versus AMD's 4 MB. Memory support differs: DDR3 for Intel versus DDR4 for AMD, with only the AMD chip listing a memory bandwidth figure of 42.7 GB/s. PCIe lane counts are 16 for Intel versus 4 for AMD, both Gen 3.

The integrated GPUs are different models — Intel HD 2500 versus Radeon Vega 3. The Intel chip has a die size of 133 mm², while the AMD chip is 192 mm² and lists 4,800 million transistors; the Intel chip does not list a transistor count. The market segments differ, with Intel classified as desktop and AMD as server/workstation. Release dates are far apart: September 2012 for Intel versus September 2018 for AMD. The AMD part is end-of-life, while no production status is listed for Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, victory for the Intel Core i5-3330 in raw compute performance. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with margins ranging from 7.5% to 7.9%. The 4-core configuration provides a consistent edge over the 2-core AMD chip in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, despite the AMD chip's higher base clock and larger per-core caches.

Buyers who prioritize multi-core throughput for rendering or compilation workloads should favor the Intel chip, as its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 3486 outstrips the AMD's 3243 by a meaningful 7.5%. The same holds for single-core responsiveness, where the Intel chip leads by 7.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

However, the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE makes a compelling case for scenarios where power efficiency matters more than peak performance. Its 35 W TDP is less than half the Intel chip's 77 W, making it the obvious choice for compact or thermally constrained systems. The AMD chip also brings modern DDR4 memory support and a newer platform in Socket AM4, which offers a more current upgrade path than Intel's Socket 1155.

The identical average benchmark scores of 1200 and identical 34th percentile rankings indicate that these chips occupy the same performance tier overall. The Intel chip is the stronger pure performer by a consistent margin, but the AMD chip counters with dramatically lower power draw, newer memory technology, and a more recent release date. Users who need every last point of Cinebench score should choose Intel; users who need a low-power, modern-platform processor with adequate performance should choose AMD. The data does not support a universal winner — only a trade-off between performance and efficiency.