AMD Athlon PRO 3045B vs AMD PRO A8-8650B Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits this comparison into two distinct territories. The AMD PRO A8-8650B wins five of the seven head-to-head tests, taking every Cinebench workload from R15 through R23. The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B wins the remaining two, both Geekbench tests. This is not a close overall battle; the A8-8650B holds a commanding lead in the rendering-oriented Cinebench suite, while the Athlon PRO 3045B counters with a decisive advantage in the more synthetic Geekbench workloads.

The A8-8650B’s wins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 275 against 237 for the Athlon, a 16% advantage. That margin repeats almost exactly across every Cinebench test: R20 multicore shows 1148 versus 988 (16.2%), R20 singlecore shows 162 versus 139 (16.5%), R23 multicore shows 2734 versus 2354 (16.1%), and R23 singlecore shows 386 versus 332 (16.3%). The consistency suggests a stable architectural edge in these workloads, not a test-specific fluke. For users running Cinebench-style tasks, which typically stress sustained execution across multiple threads and integer-heavy calculations, the A8-8650B is the clear pick.

The Athlon PRO 3045B’s wins are larger in percentage terms but confined to Geekbench. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 1287 against 1060, a 17.6% lead. In Geekbench singlecore, the gap widens dramatically: 766 versus 441, a 42.4% advantage. These are substantial margins, particularly in singlecore performance. Geekbench’s workload mix tends to favor newer instruction sets and memory latency characteristics, areas where the Athlon’s Zen architecture shows its hand. For users whose primary software relies on Geekbench-style patterns, such as complex branch prediction and memory access sequences, the Athlon offers a significantly faster experience.

The overall average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The A8-8650B averages 887 across all tests, placing it at the 24th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Athlon PRO 3045B averages 872, placing it at the 23rd percentile. These are nearly identical aggregate positions, differing by less than 2%. The head-to-head wins are therefore more informative than the averages: the A8-8650B wins the Cinebench family outright, while the Athlon wins Geekbench by a wide singlecore margin. Neither processor is a general-purpose champion; each serves a specific workload class better than the other.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD PRO A8-8650B uses the Steamroller architecture, codenamed Godaveri, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. The Athlon PRO 3045B uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Dali, on a 14 nm process also at GlobalFoundries, with 3,500 million transistors on a smaller 148 mm² die. The process shrink and transistor density are stark differences: the Athlon fits more transistors on a significantly smaller piece of silicon.

Core counts diverge as well. The A8-8650B has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, a straightforward 4-core design. The Athlon PRO 3045B has 2 physical cores but 4 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double its logical core count. In Cinebench, the A8’s extra physical cores give it the edge, as the benchmark scales well with additional physical execution units. In Geekbench, the Athlon’s Zen cores, even with fewer physical units, prove more efficient per clock and per thread.

Cache configurations differ materially. The A8-8650B has 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3. The Athlon PRO 3045B has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Athlon’s L3 cache is a significant architectural addition, providing a larger pool of fast memory for frequently accessed data. This likely contributes to its Geekbench singlecore lead, as that test often rewards lower-latency cache hierarchies.

Memory support also separates them. The A8-8650B uses DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a theoretical bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The Athlon PRO 3045B uses DDR4 in dual-channel, reaching 38.4 GB/s. The newer memory standard offers higher bandwidth and typically lower latency, again favoring the Athlon in memory-sensitive tests. ECC memory is supported on the Athlon but not on the A8, a feature relevant for workstation or server-adjacent deployments. The A8 offers 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Athlon provides 12, a minor difference for expansion.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The A8-8650B carries a Radeon R7 iGPU, while the Athlon PRO 3045B has Radeon Vega with 2 compute units. Both can handle basic display output and light graphics tasks, but the database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no quantitative comparison is possible here. The A8 is a desktop part on Socket FM2+, while the Athlon is a mobile part on Socket FP5, which explains the Athlon’s 15 W TDP versus the A8’s 65 W TDP. The production status also differs: the A8 is end-of-life, while the Athlon remains active.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to different chips. For Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the AMD PRO A8-8650B is the better choice. It wins every Cinebench test by roughly 16%, a consistent margin that indicates real architectural strength in that specific benchmark family. Its 4 physical cores and higher clock speeds (3.20 GHz base, 3.90 GHz boost versus 2.30 GHz base, 3.20 GHz boost) give it an insurmountable lead in these tasks. The A8 also holds a slight edge in aggregate average score, 887 versus 872, and sits at the 24th percentile versus the Athlon’s 23rd.

For Geekbench-style workloads, particularly singlecore tasks, the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B is the clear winner. Its 42.4% singlecore advantage is the largest margin in the entire head-to-head set. The Zen architecture’s modern design, combined with L3 cache and DDR4 memory support, delivers a much faster experience in these tests. The Athlon also wins Geekbench multicore by 17.6%, so users whose applications follow Geekbench patterns should favor it without hesitation.

The overall percentiles are close, but the workload split is sharp. No single chip dominates all tests. The A8-8650B is for users prioritizing Cinebench-compatible rendering or multi-threaded CPU workloads, where its physical core count and higher clocks matter. The Athlon PRO 3045B is for users prioritizing Geekbench-style performance, where its architectural efficiency and cache hierarchy shine. The Athlon’s lower TDP (15 W versus 65 W) is also notable for any deployment where thermal or power constraints are a factor, though the database does not provide direct energy cost comparisons. The A8’s end-of-life status may affect availability, but its benchmark performance remains valid for assessment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD PRO A8-8650B wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head tests, while the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B wins 2.

Q: What is the largest performance difference in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest margin is the Geekbench singlecore test, where the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B scores 766 against 441 for the AMD PRO A8-8650B, a 42.4% advantage.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD PRO A8-8650B scores 2734, while the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B scores 2354, giving the A8 a 16.1% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B supports ECC memory, while the AMD PRO A8-8650B does not.

Q: What are the cache configurations of the two processors?

A: The AMD PRO A8-8650B has 256 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2, with no L3 cache. The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD PRO A8-8650B has a base clock of 3.20 GHz, compared to 2.30 GHz for the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore result opens the comparison. The A8-8650B posts 275, the Athlon 237, a 16% difference in favor of the A8. This sets the pattern for the entire Cinebench family. R20 multicore follows with 1148 versus 988, a 16.2% lead. R20 singlecore sees 162 versus 139, a 16.5% gap. R23 multicore shows 2734 versus 2354, a 16.1% margin. R23 singlecore closes the Cinebench set with 386 versus 332, a 16.3% edge. Every Cinebench test lands within a narrow band of 16% to 16.5%, suggesting a consistent architectural advantage for the A8 in these workloads. The A8’s higher clocks and extra physical cores drive this uniform superiority.

Geekbench flips the script entirely. In Geekbench multicore, the Athlon scores 1287 against 1060, a 17.6% win. This is the Athlon’s first victory, and it is decisive. The multicore result is notable because the Athlon has only 2 physical cores, yet it outperforms a 4-core chip by nearly a fifth. The Zen architecture’s efficiency per core is evident here. Geekbench singlecore then delivers the largest margin of the entire comparison. The Athlon scores 766, the A8 scores 441, a 42.4% gap. This is not a close contest; the Athlon is in a different performance class in this specific test. The combination of L3 cache, DDR4 memory, and newer instruction handling gives the Athlon a massive single-thread advantage.

The average benchmark scores contextualize these wins. The A8-8650B averages 887, with nearest rivals including the Intel Pentium G4560T at 887 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i3-6100 at 888 (-0.2% delta). The Athlon averages 872, with nearest rivals including the Intel Atom C5315 at 871 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i3-5157U at 877 (-0.5% delta). The A8’s rivals are desktop-class parts, while the Athlon’s rivals include mobile and low-power server chips, reflecting their market segments. The A8’s 24th percentile and the Athlon’s 23rd percentile are statistically adjacent, but the head-to-head results reveal a clear workload-based split that the averages obscure.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ: the AMD PRO A8-8650B has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B has 2 cores and 4 threads. Clock speeds also favor the A8, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost of 3.90 GHz, versus 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost for the Athlon. TDP is a major divergence: the A8 draws 65 W, the Athlon just 15 W. The sockets are incompatible, with the A8 using AMD Socket FM2+ and the Athlon using AMD Socket FP5.

Architecture and process node separate the two significantly. The A8 uses Steamroller (Godaveri) on 28 nm, while the Athlon uses Zen (Dali) on 14 nm. Transistor counts and die sizes differ: 2,411 million transistors on 245 mm² for the A8, 3,500 million on 148 mm² for the Athlon. Cache structures are distinct, as detailed earlier: no L3 on the A8, 4 MB shared L3 on the Athlon. Memory support differs, with the A8 using DDR3 and the Athlon using DDR4. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Athlon at 38.4 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s. ECC support is present only on the Athlon.

PCIe lane counts differ slightly, with the A8 offering 16 Gen 3 lanes and the Athlon 12 Gen 3 lanes. Integrated graphics names differ: Radeon R7 on the A8, Radeon Vega (2CU) on the Athlon. Market segments are opposite, with the A8 designated Desktop and the Athlon Mobile. Production status shows the A8 as end-of-life and the Athlon as active. The A8’s release date is recorded as September 28, 2015; the Athlon’s release date is not recorded in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The part numbers are AD865BYBI44JC for the A8 and YM3045C4T2OFG for the Athlon.