CPU Comparison

# The Verdict

The AMD Athlon X4 880K and Intel Processor N95 sit virtually tied in aggregate performance, with average benchmark scores of 1071 and 1070 respectively. Yet their individual benchmark results tell a more nuanced story. The Intel Processor N95 wins two of the three head-to-head comparisons, including a decisive 52% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core (914 vs 439). However, the AMD Athlon X4 880K claims the most important multi-threaded victory, scoring 3114 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 2769 for the N95, a 12.5% lead.

The data suggests that users prioritizing single-threaded responsiveness should choose the Intel N95, while those running heavily threaded workloads that scale beyond four cores may find the AMD part more capable. The N95 also brings integrated graphics and a dramatically lower 15W TDP, making it suitable for compact, power-conscious systems. The Athlon X4 880K, with its 95W TDP and unlocked multiplier, targets enthusiasts with existing FM2+ platforms who want maximum multi-core throughput. Neither part exceeds the 30th percentile among all CPUs, placing both firmly in entry-level territory.

# Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies from different eras. The AMD Athlon X4 880K uses the Steamroller architecture on a 28nm process from GlobalFoundries, codenamed Godaveri. It packs four cores and four threads with a 4.00 GHz base clock and 4.20 GHz boost. The Intel Processor N95 employs the Gracemont architecture, the efficient-core design from Alder Lake-N, fabricated on Intel's 10nm process, with four cores and four threads running at a 100.00 MHz base (essentially a placeholder figure) and 3.40 GHz boost.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect their different origins. The AMD chip contains 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, while Intel does not disclose these figures for the N95. Cache hierarchies differ substantially: the Athlon X4 880K offers 256 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2 with no L3, whereas the N95 provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and crucially, 6 MB of shared L3 cache. This L3 presence likely explains part of the N95's single-core advantage.

Memory support diverges sharply. The AMD part uses dual-channel DDR3 with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel N95 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but only in single-channel configuration, achieving 38.4 GB/s. The N95 also includes integrated UHD Graphics 710, whereas the Athlon X4 880K has no integrated graphics at all. PCIe connectivity differs as well: AMD provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while Intel offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes. The Athlon X4 880K's multiplier is unlocked, enabling overclocking; the N95 is locked.

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data reveals a clear split along workload type. The Intel Processor N95 dominates single-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 914 dwarfs the Athlon X4 880K's 439, a 52% margin. This translates to snappier everyday computing, faster application launches, more responsive web browsing, and better performance in lightly threaded software. The N95 also wins the older Cinebench R15 multicore test by 29.7% (445 vs 313), suggesting strong performance in legacy workloads that rely on older instruction sets or lower thread counts.

The AMD Athlon X4 880K fights back in modern multi-threaded rendering. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 3114 surpasses the N95's 2769 by 12.5%. This indicates that in current-generation rendering engines and heavily threaded content creation tasks, the older AMD architecture can still outperform the newer Intel part. The Athlon's dual-channel memory interface and four full-strength cores may contribute to this result, even without L3 cache.

The Cinebench R20 multicore score of 1307 for the AMD part (no comparable N95 result is provided) reinforces that the Athlon holds up in multi-threaded scenarios. The N95's single-channel memory bus, despite higher raw bandwidth, may bottleneck certain multi-threaded workloads that require frequent memory access. Users with FM2+ motherboards looking to extend platform life will find the Athlon competitive, while those building new low-power systems should lean toward the N95.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Processor N95 wins decisively, scoring 914 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 439 for the AMD Athlon X4 880K, a 52% advantage. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark.

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

A: It depends on the benchmark generation. The AMD Athlon X4 880K wins Cinebench R23 multicore with 3114 vs 2769 (12.5% ahead), but the Intel N95 wins Cinebench R15 multicore with 445 vs 313 (29.7% ahead). The Athlon's advantage appears in modern rendering workloads.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both feature 4 cores and 4 threads. However, their architectures differ significantly, the AMD uses Steamroller while the Intel uses Gracemont, which explains the performance pattern differences despite identical thread counts.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Processor N95 has integrated graphics, featuring UHD Graphics 710. The AMD Athlon X4 880K does not include any integrated GPU, requiring a discrete graphics card for display output.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Processor N95 has a 15W TDP, while the AMD Athlon X4 880K has a 95W TDP. The N95 is designed for mobile and low-power systems, whereas the Athlon targets desktop platforms with higher cooling headroom.

Q: Which processor is better for overclocking?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 880K has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Intel Processor N95 is locked. The Athlon's 4.20 GHz boost clock can potentially be pushed higher on suitable FM2+ motherboards.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three direct comparisons between these processors reveal an interesting generational shift. The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Intel N95 scores 914 against the Athlon's 439. This 52% deficit for AMD highlights how far single-threaded IPC has advanced. The Gracemont architecture's efficiency cores, despite their modest 3.40 GHz boost clock, outperform the Steamroller cores at 4.20 GHz by a wide margin. This suggests architectural improvements, including the 6 MB L3 cache, matter more than raw clock speed.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the tables turn. The AMD Athlon X4 880K scores 3114, beating the Intel N95's 2769 by 12.5%. This is counterintuitive given the N95's single-core dominance. The explanation likely lies in sustained multi-core operation: the Athlon's 95W TDP allows all four cores to maintain high clocks under load, while the N95's 15W TDP may force aggressive power limiting that reduces multi-core performance. The Athlon's dual-channel memory also provides better bandwidth for parallel workloads.

The Cinebench R15 multicore result complicates the picture further. Here, the Intel N95 wins with 445 versus 313, a 29.7% margin. This older benchmark may not scale as well across the Athlon's architecture, or it may favor the N95's higher memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s). The pattern suggests that as rendering workloads evolve toward Cinebench R23's methodology, the AMD part becomes relatively stronger. Users should consider which benchmark generation best reflects their actual software.

The aggregate average benchmark scores, 1071 for AMD and 1070 for Intel, confirm that neither processor holds an overall performance crown. Their nearest rivals cluster tightly: the AMD Opteron 3380 scores 1071, the Intel Core i5-5287U scores 1072, and the Intel Core i3-4170T scores 1072, all within 0.1% of each other. The Athlon X4 880K and Intel N95 are separated by just 0.1% in aggregate, with the AMD part technically ahead by one point. This near-parity in overall metrics masks the very different performance profiles each chip offers for specific tasks.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD Athlon X4 880K uses the Steamroller architecture on a 28nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the Intel Processor N95 employs Gracemont on Intel's 10nm node. The AMD chip's base clock is listed at 4.00 GHz with a 4.20 GHz boost, whereas the Intel part shows a 100.00 MHz base (a placeholder) and 3.40 GHz boost. The Athlon's TDP of 95W is more than six times higher than the N95's 15W.

Socket compatibility separates them completely: the AMD part uses AMD Socket FM2+, while the Intel N95 uses Intel BGA 1264, meaning they cannot be interchanged on any motherboard. Cache configurations differ substantially, the Athlon provides 256 KB L1 and 4 MB L2 with no L3, while the N95 offers 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support sees the AMD part using dual-channel DDR3 at 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel part supports single-channel DDR4 and DDR5 at 38.4 GB/s.

PCIe lanes favor AMD with 16 Gen 3 lanes versus Intel's 9 Gen 3 lanes. The Athlon X4 880K has no integrated graphics; the N95 includes UHD Graphics 710. The AMD processor's multiplier is unlocked for overclocking, while the Intel part is locked. The Athlon X4 880K is end-of-life with part number AD880KXBJCSBX, while the N95 remains active with a release date of January 2023. The AMD chip's die measures 245 mm² with 2,411 million transistors; Intel does not disclose these for the N95. Market segments differ too, the Athlon targets desktop systems, while the N95 is a mobile processor.