AMD Athlon PRO 300U vs Intel Core i5-3450 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent pattern across all five shared benchmark tests: the Intel Core i5-3450 wins every single head-to-head matchup. The narrowest margin appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Intel scores 387 against the AMD Athlon PRO 300U's 349, a delta of 10.9 percent. This is the only test where the gap exceeds 10.9 percent, but only by a hair; the remaining four tests all settle at 10.7 or 10.8 percent.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Intel posts 1613 versus 1456 for the AMD, a 10.8 percent advantage. The single-core R20 test shows 227 versus 205, again a 10.7 percent lead for Intel. The most demanding workload, Cinebench R23, reinforces the trend: multi-core scores are 3842 for Intel and 3468 for AMD (10.8 percent), while single-core scores are 542 versus 489 (10.8 percent). The Intel wins all five tests, with the AMD failing to secure a single victory.

Looking at broader benchmarks, the Intel also holds the Geekbench edge, though these tests are not part of the head-to-head table. The Intel scores 1985 multi-core and 681 single-core, while the AMD has no Geekbench entries in the database. The average benchmark score for the Intel is 1166, placing it at the 33rd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD's average is 1193, also at the 33rd percentile. This is noteworthy: despite losing every head-to-head test, the AMD's overall average is slightly higher because it is measured across a different set of workloads, many of which are absent for the Intel.

The nearest rival data for the Intel shows it sitting within 0.3 percent of the AMD Opteron 6220, Intel Core i5-3570S, Intel Core i7-2960XM, and Intel Core i7-3635QM. For the AMD, its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-4170 and Intel Core i7-8665UE, both with equal average scores (delta of 0 percent), plus the AMD Opteron 3365 and AMD Opteron 6234 within 0.2 percent. These comparisons confirm that both processors occupy a similar performance tier, despite the Intel's clear margin in the direct Cinebench comparisons.

The Verdict

The data directs a straightforward choice for anyone comparing these two processors. The Intel Core i5-3450 is the outright winner in every benchmark where both have recorded scores. Its multi-core advantage in Cinebench R23, 3842 versus 3468, is a 10.8 percent lead that would translate into noticeably faster rendering times for multi-threaded workloads. Single-core performance also favors Intel, with 542 versus 489 in R23 single-core, a 10.8 percent gap that matters for lightly threaded applications.

The AMD Athlon PRO 300U's higher average benchmark score (1193 versus 1166) does not overturn the head-to-head results. That average is skewed by different test coverage, not by superior performance in any shared test. For a user prioritizing raw compute speed in Cinebench workloads, the Intel is the clear pick. The Intel also offers four physical cores versus two for the AMD, a structural advantage that aligns with its multi-core wins.

However, the AMD is not without merit. It is a mobile processor with a 15 watt TDP, versus 77 watts for the Intel. It is also an active production part, while the Intel is end-of-life. For a system where power consumption is the primary constraint, the AMD is the sensible choice, even at a 10.8 percent performance deficit. The verdict from the data: choose Intel for maximum performance, choose AMD for efficiency and modern platform support.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design eras and philosophies. The Intel Core i5-3450 is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, a 22 nanometer node from Intel, with a die size of 160 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. It uses the Intel Socket 1155 and is a desktop part. The AMD Athlon PRO 300U uses the Zen architecture, specifically the Raven Ridge 2 codename, on a 14 nanometer node from GlobalFoundries. It uses the AMD Socket FP5 and is a mobile part.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Intel has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD has 128 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. The AMD's larger per-core caches are a design choice for its Zen architecture, but the Intel's larger L3 pool helps compensate in multi-core workloads. Neither supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics also diverge. The Intel includes Intel HD 2500, while the AMD includes Radeon Vega 3. The AMD's Vega-based graphics are generally more capable, though the database does not provide comparative graphics benchmarks. Memory support differs as well: the Intel uses DDR3, while the AMD uses DDR4. The Intel's memory bus is dual-channel with a recorded bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s; the AMD's bandwidth is unlisted, but its dual-channel DDR4 support is a generational upgrade.

The production statuses tell a story: the Intel is end-of-life, released in 2012, while the AMD is active, released in 2019. This seven-year gap explains the architectural differences, from process node to memory type. The Intel is a product of its era, while the AMD represents a later mobile-focused design.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification gap is the core count. The Intel has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD has 2 cores and 4 threads. This means the Intel offers true quad-core parallelism, while the AMD relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach four threads. Base clocks differ: the Intel runs at 3.10 GHz with a boost to 3.50 GHz, while the AMD runs at 2.40 GHz with a boost to 3.30 GHz. The Intel's higher base clock is a direct contributor to its single-core wins.

TDP is the biggest differentiator. The Intel draws 77 watts, while the AMD draws only 15 watts. That is a massive efficiency gap, making the AMD far better suited for battery-powered or thermally constrained devices. The socket and market segment reflect this: desktop for Intel, mobile for AMD. The Intel has a recorded launch MSRP of $174, while the AMD has no launch MSRP listed.

The Intel supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD's PCIe details are not recorded. The Intel's part number is SR0PF, while the AMD's is not listed. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel's generation is listed as "Core i5 (Ivy Bridge)", while the AMD's is "Athlon (Zen (Raven Ridge 2))". These are the key fields where the two differ; everything else, such as memory bus type (dual-channel for both), is shared.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-3450 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. In R15, it scores 387 versus 349 (10.9 percent); in R20, 1613 versus 1456 (10.8 percent); in R23, 3842 versus 3468 (10.8 percent).

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The Intel Core i5-3450 leads in both recorded single-core head-to-head tests. In Cinebench R20, it scores 227 versus 205 (10.7 percent); in R23, 542 versus 489 (10.8 percent).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i5-3450 has a TDP of 77 watts, while the AMD Athlon PRO 300U has a TDP of 15 watts. This makes the AMD significantly more power-efficient.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel has an average benchmark score of 1166, while the AMD has an average of 1193. Both sit at the 33rd percentile of all CPUs, despite the AMD's higher average.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core i5-3450 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Athlon PRO 300U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Intel offers double the physical core count.

Q: What are the production statuses of these processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-3450 is end-of-life, while the AMD Athlon PRO 300U is active. The Intel was released in 2012, the AMD in 2019.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3450 wins in every benchmark where both have recorded scores. Its strengths are clear in multi-threaded rendering, as shown by the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, where it leads by 10.8 to 10.9 percent. It also wins single-core performance, with a 10.7 to 10.8 percent edge in R20 and R23. The Intel's four physical cores and higher base clock (3.10 GHz versus 2.40 GHz) are the structural reasons for these victories. It is the better choice for desktop workloads that demand raw compute throughput, such as video encoding or 3D rendering, where its higher TDP can be accommodated.

The AMD Athlon PRO 300U wins in efficiency and platform modernity. Its 15 watt TDP is a fraction of the Intel's 77 watts, making it the obvious pick for laptops or fanless designs where heat and battery life are critical. It is an active product, still in production, while the Intel is discontinued. The AMD uses DDR4 memory and a newer 14 nm process, which offers a more modern platform foundation. It also includes Radeon Vega 3 integrated graphics, which are likely more capable than the Intel HD 2500, though the database does not provide direct graphics comparisons. For a user who prioritizes low power consumption, a current production status, or a mobile form factor, the AMD is the better fit, even at a 10.8 percent performance cost in Cinebench workloads.