AMD Athlon PRO 200GE vs Intel Core i5-4440 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear split between these two processors, but it is not a balanced one. The Intel Core i5-4440 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, five out of five recorded tests. The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE does not record a single victory in any of the compared workloads. This is a decisive dominance for the Intel part across all measured categories.

Looking at the workload types, the Intel Core i5-4440 leads in both single-core and multi-core tests. In single-core performance, which typically reflects responsiveness in everyday applications and lightly threaded tasks, the Intel chip holds a consistent advantage. In multi-core tests, which scale with content creation, compilation, and rendering workloads, the Intel part also comes out ahead. The data does not show any scenario where the AMD processor is the better choice based purely on benchmark scores.

The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE does have a different positioning in the broader database. It sits at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core i5-4440 sits at the 33rd percentile. These are very close percentile rankings, suggesting that on average across the entire CPU landscape, the two parts land in a similar tier of overall performance. However, the direct comparison reveals that the Intel chip is consistently faster in the tests that matter most for CPU throughput.

The key takeaway is simple: if the task is purely about raw processing power, the Intel Core i5-4440 is the winner in every measurable category. The AMD part may offer other advantages in platform features or power characteristics, but on the benchmark scores recorded here, it does not win any workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-4440 wins in every multi-core test. It scores 410 vs 326 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1712 vs 1362 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 4077 vs 3243 in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: Does the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the AMD part. The Intel Core i5-4440 wins all five recorded comparisons, including both single-core and multi-core tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap in single-core tests?

A: The gap is consistent at roughly 20%. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel scores 241 vs 191 for AMD, a delta of -20.7%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel scores 575 vs 457, a delta of -20.5%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE has an average benchmark score of 1200, while the Intel Core i5-4440 has an average of 1179. Despite the lower average, the Intel chip wins every direct head-to-head test.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE is essentially tied with the Intel Core i5-3330, with a delta of 0%. It is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 2200G. The Intel Core i5-4440 is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-3550 and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i3-7320.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Nearly so. The AMD part is at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel part is at the 33rd percentile. This suggests they occupy a similar overall tier, despite the Intel chip's clear win in direct comparisons.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparisons show a uniform 20% advantage for the Intel Core i5-4440 across all tests. The smallest gap is in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Intel scores 1712 against the AMD's 1362, a delta of -20.4%. The largest gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Intel scores 241 against 191, a delta of -20.7%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel scores 410 vs 326, a delta of -20.5%. This is the oldest benchmark in the set, and the pattern holds. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel scores 4077 vs 3243, again a delta of -20.5%. The consistency of the delta across different benchmark versions, from R15 through R23, indicates that the performance relationship between these two CPUs is stable and not dependent on workload generation.

The single-core results are particularly telling. The Intel Core i5-4440 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz, while the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE has a fixed base clock of 3.20 GHz with no boost. Despite the AMD part's higher base clock, the Intel chip still wins by 20% in single-threaded tests. This points to a substantial per-clock performance advantage for the Intel architecture in this comparison.

The multi-core results are also notable because the Intel Core i5-4440 has four physical cores and four threads, while the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE has two physical cores and four threads. The Intel part's four physical cores give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, which is reflected in the benchmark scores. The AMD part's simultaneous multithreading does not close the gap.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every fundamental specification category. The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i5-4440 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part runs at a base clock of 3.20 GHz with no boost clock, while the Intel part has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz.

Thermal design power differs significantly. The AMD part is rated at 35 watts, while the Intel part is rated at 84 watts. This means the AMD chip draws less power under load, which could be relevant for system cooling and power supply requirements, but the benchmark data does not directly measure power consumption.

The sockets are incompatible. The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE uses AMD Socket AM4, while the Intel Core i5-4440 uses Intel Socket 1150. Memory support also differs: the AMD part supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel part supports DDR3. The AMD part lists a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the Intel part does not have a recorded bandwidth figure.

The PCIe support differs as well. The AMD part lists PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part lists PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count. Both have integrated graphics: the AMD part has Radeon Vega 3, and the Intel part has Intel HD 4600. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two CPUs spans multiple generations. The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed "Zen" with the generation listed as Athlon (Zen (Raven Ridge)). It uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries and contains 4,800 million transistors on a 192 mm² die. The Intel Core i5-4440 is built on the Haswell architecture from Intel, using a 22 nm process node and containing 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die.

The cache structures differ notably. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has a larger total L3 cache, while the AMD part has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

The release dates are separated by roughly five years. The Intel Core i5-4440 was released in August 2013, while the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE was released in September 2018. The AMD part is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the Intel part has no recorded production status. The AMD part is classified as a Server/Workstation segment product, while the Intel part is classified as Desktop.

The transistor counts reflect different design philosophies. The AMD part has over three times as many transistors (4,800 million vs 1,400 million), but the Intel part achieves higher benchmark scores despite the smaller transistor budget. This is a direct demonstration of architectural efficiency differences between the two platforms.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-4440 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. It wins all five head-to-head tests with a consistent 20% margin. Anyone choosing between these two based purely on performance should select the Intel part. The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE does not win a single workload in the database.

However, the choice is not solely about benchmark scores. The AMD part offers a much lower thermal design power at 35 watts vs 84 watts, which could be important for compact or power-sensitive systems. The AMD part also supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel part is limited to DDR3. The AMD part has a larger L1 and L2 cache per core, which could benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads, though the benchmark data does not show this advantage manifesting in any measured test.

The Intel Core i5-4440 is the pick for users who prioritize raw CPU throughput in both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications. Its four physical cores and higher boost clock give it a structural performance edge that the AMD part cannot overcome. The 20% delta is consistent across all benchmark versions, indicating a reliable and predictable performance advantage.

The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE is the pick for users who prioritize lower power consumption and a more modern platform. The 35 watt TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 84 watt rating. The DDR4 memory support and AM4 socket provide a more current platform foundation. But for raw performance, the database records no scenario where the AMD part comes out ahead.

In the broader context, both CPUs sit at nearly the same percentile of all CPUs (34th for AMD, 33rd for Intel), meaning they are in the same overall performance tier. The Intel part is at the top of that tier, while the AMD part is near the bottom. The nearest rivals for each part reinforce this: the AMD part is tied with the Intel Core i5-3330, while the Intel part is essentially tied with the Intel Core i5-3550. These are comparable mid-range parts from their respective eras.

The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Core i5-4440 is the superior processor in every benchmark category recorded. The AMD Athlon PRO 200GE offers platform advantages in power and memory support, but it cannot match the Intel part's processing power. Choose based on whether performance or platform features matter more for the intended use case.