AMD Athlon X4 950 vs Intel Core i5-4570TE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 950 scores 3041 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 11.8% higher than the Intel Core i5-4570TE's 2681. This is the largest multi-core gap recorded between the two.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-4570TE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 4600 graphics. The AMD Athlon X4 950 has no integrated graphics, as the database lists no iGPU for it.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-4570TE has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD Athlon X4 950 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Both are desktop processors.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 950 runs at a base clock of 3.50 GHz, compared to the Intel Core i5-4570TE's 2.70 GHz. The AMD also boosts higher at 3.80 GHz versus 3.30 GHz.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Intel processor wins?

A: No. In all five recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD Athlon X4 950 wins. The Intel Core i5-4570TE has zero wins in the database.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two?

A: The Intel Core i5-4570TE has an average benchmark score of 1062, while the AMD Athlon X4 950 averages 1047. This is a 1.4% difference favoring Intel, despite Intel losing every individual head-to-head test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Intel Core i5-4570TE uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process, fabricated by Intel. The AMD Athlon X4 950 uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process, fabricated by GlobalFoundries. This process node difference contributes to the Intel chip's lower 35 W TDP compared to the AMD's 65 W TDP, making the Intel part significantly more power-efficient on paper.

The transistor counts reflect the different design philosophies. The Intel Haswell chip packs 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. AMD's Excavator design uses 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, more than double the transistor count but with a much larger physical footprint. The cache hierarchies also differ sharply: Intel provides 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, plus a shared 4 MB L3 cache. AMD offers 320 KB total L1 and 2 MB total L2, with no L3 cache at all. This absence of L3 cache on the AMD part is a notable architectural handicap in workloads that benefit from larger shared pools.

Memory support creates another division. The Intel Core i5-4570TE supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus, while the AMD Athlon X4 950 supports DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The database does not list a memory bandwidth figure for the Intel part, but the DDR4 support on AMD's side aligns with its newer socket. The Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1150, while AMD uses AMD Socket AM4, meaning platform choices are entirely separate. Both support PCIe Gen 3, though AMD's implementation is limited to 8 lanes (CPU only), while Intel's PCIe lane configuration is not restricted in the same way.

The release dates show a four-year gap. Intel launched in June 2013, while AMD arrived in July 2017. The AMD Athlon X4 950 is listed as Active in production status, while the Intel chip has no production status listed. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking headroom is limited for both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern across all five tests: the AMD Athlon X4 950 wins every single benchmark, with deltas ranging from 11.8% to 12.2%. The Intel Core i5-4570TE never takes a single win in the database, giving AMD a clean 5-0 sweep.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 306 against Intel's 270, a delta of 11.8%. This is the narrowest relative gap among the multi-core tests but still a decisive margin. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD scores 1277 versus Intel's 1126, again an 11.8% delta. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23 multi-core with AMD at 3041 and Intel at 2681, maintaining the exact same 11.8% delta. This consistency across three generations of Cinebench suggests the performance ratio is stable, not an artifact of a single test version.

Single-core tests tell a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, AMD scores 180 versus Intel's 158, a delta of 12.2%, the largest gap in the entire head-to-head set. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD scores 429 versus Intel's 378, a delta of 11.9%. The single-core advantage for AMD is slightly larger than the multi-core advantage, which is notable given that the Intel chip has a higher boost clock relative to its base, but the AMD chip's raw clocks are simply higher across the board.

What makes this interesting is the contradiction with the average benchmark scores. The Intel Core i5-4570TE has an average benchmark score of 1062, while the AMD Athlon X4 950 averages 1047. That means Intel holds a 1.4% lead in the aggregate database average, even though it loses every head-to-head test. This discrepancy suggests the Intel chip performs better in other benchmark suites not included in the head-to-head list, such as Geekbench. The database shows Intel scoring 1857 in Geekbench multi-core and 966 in single-core, while no Geekbench results are listed for the AMD part. This missing data point likely explains why Intel's average holds up despite losing all five direct comparisons.

The percentile rankings also tell a nuanced story. Both processors sit at the 29th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite their different strengths and weaknesses.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for raw compute performance: the AMD Athlon X4 950 is the faster processor in every measured head-to-head benchmark. With five wins out of five and consistent 11.8% to 12.2% deltas, the AMD chip delivers a clear performance advantage in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads as recorded in the database. Anyone prioritizing maximum benchmark score in Cinebench tests should choose the AMD part.

However, the Intel Core i5-4570TE is not without its own claims. It has a much lower 35 W TDP compared to AMD's 65 W, making it the better choice for power-constrained systems or those with limited cooling. It also includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, which is a decisive feature for builds without a discrete GPU. The AMD chip has no integrated graphics at all, meaning it requires a separate graphics card for any display output.

The average benchmark score favors Intel slightly, 1062 versus 1047, suggesting that outside the specific Cinebench tests, the Intel chip may hold its own or even excel. The Geekbench results for Intel (1857 multi-core, 966 single-core) are recorded in the database but have no direct AMD comparison, leaving an incomplete picture. The user who needs a low-power, all-in-one CPU with integrated graphics and a smaller physical footprint (177 mm² die versus 250 mm²) might prefer Intel.

The user who wants the fastest Cinebench scores, supports DDR4 memory, and is building a system with a dedicated GPU should pick the AMD Athlon X4 950. Its four physical cores, higher clocks, and consistent benchmark wins make it the performance pick. The verdict is not unanimous, but the head-to-head data is.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i5-4570TE | AMD Athlon X4 950 |

|-------|----------------------|-------------------|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Excavator |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 | None |

| Release Date | June 2013 | July 2017 |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Athlon X4 950 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, so it is the clear choice for performance-oriented tasks covered by the Cinebench suite. Its wins span both single-core and multi-core tests, with deltas of 11.8% to 12.2%. The AMD chip also wins on memory technology, supporting DDR4 with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, which the Intel part cannot match due to its DDR3 limitation. For users who value newer platform support, the AM4 socket and Active production status give AMD the edge in longevity and availability.

The Intel Core i5-4570TE wins in power efficiency, with a 35 W TDP that is nearly half the AMD's 65 W. This makes it the better option for compact systems, low-noise builds, or environments where heat dissipation is a concern. The Intel chip also wins on process technology, using a smaller 22 nm node versus AMD's 28 nm, which contributes to its lower power draw. The integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics give Intel a decisive advantage for systems without a discrete GPU, as the AMD chip cannot output video without an add-in card. The smaller die size (177 mm² versus 250 mm²) also hints at lower manufacturing complexity, though that is not a user-facing benefit.

The average benchmark score of 1062 versus 1047 suggests the Intel chip may win in broader benchmark suites not covered by the head-to-head list. The Geekbench results for Intel, 1857 multi-core and 966 single-core, are recorded in the database, and without comparable AMD Geekbench scores, the Intel chip remains competitive in that specific metric. The Intel part also has a higher L3 cache capacity at 4 MB shared, versus none on the AMD side, which could benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads even if the Cinebench results do not reflect that advantage.

In summary, the AMD Athlon X4 950 is the winner for raw compute and modern platform features, while the Intel Core i5-4570TE is the winner for power efficiency, integrated graphics, and possibly non-Cinebench workloads as suggested by the aggregate average. The choice depends on whether the user prioritizes benchmark performance or system-level flexibility.