CPU Comparison

The AMD FX-8800P and Intel Core i5-3360M are two mobile processors from different eras and design philosophies, yet they land in a remarkably similar performance bracket. The data shows that the Intel chip wins the majority of benchmark comparisons, but the AMD processor is not without its own distinct advantages. The FX-8800P is a 4-core, 4-thread part based on AMD's Excavator architecture, while the i5-3360M is a 2-core, 4-thread Ivy Bridge part from Intel. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the AMD at 843 and the Intel at 835, placing both in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs. This makes the choice between them less about overall speed and more about specific workload characteristics.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results reveal a clear split in strengths. The Intel Core i5-3360M demonstrates a consistent, albeit narrow, lead across all Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 246 against the FX-8800P's 242, a 1.6% advantage. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20, where Intel leads 1029 to 1010, and in Cinebench R23, with a score of 2451 versus 2407. The single-core Cinebench results are similarly close, with Intel winning R20 by 2.1% (145 vs 142) and R23 by 2% (346 vs 339). This suggests that for rendering tasks, particularly those that rely on the Cinebench engine, the Intel chip holds a slight but consistent edge in both multi-threaded and single-threaded performance.

Conversely, the AMD FX-8800P wins decisively in the Geekbench suite. Its multicore score of 1234 is 11.2% higher than the Intel's 1110, a substantial margin. Even in Geekbench single-core, the AMD part edges out a win, scoring 524 against Intel's 518, a 1.2% lead. This indicates that in the specific workloads simulated by Geekbench, the AMD processor's architecture is more efficient, translating to a significant performance advantage in multicore scenarios and a slight lead even when only one core is engaged. The data suggests the FX-8800P is better suited for general system responsiveness and tasks that leverage the Geekbench feature set, while the i5-3360M is the stronger choice for rendering with Cinebench.

The Verdict

The choice between these two CPUs depends entirely on the workload. If your primary concern is Cinebench rendering or similar applications, the Intel Core i5-3360M is the better option. It wins all three generations of Cinebench multicore tests and both single-core tests, even if the margins are small. The consistency of its victories across the board makes it a more predictable performer for this type of task.

However, if you are looking at a broader range of system tasks, particularly as measured by Geekbench, the AMD FX-8800P is the stronger candidate. Its 11.2% lead in Geekbench multicore is a significant advantage, and its 1.2% win in single-core shows it is also no slouch in lightly-threaded work. For a user who values the kind of performance measured by Geekbench, the FX-8800P offers a clear and measurable benefit. Ultimately, the data shows Intel wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head benchmarks, but the two wins for AMD are substantial, particularly the multicore Geekbench result.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most telling comparison is the Geekbench multicore test, where the AMD FX-8800P scores 1234, which is 11.2% higher than the Intel Core i5-3360M's score of 1110. This is the largest performance gap in any test and represents a clear victory for the AMD part. In Geekbench single-core, the FX-8800P also comes out ahead, scoring 524 versus 518, a smaller but still positive 1.2% delta. These wins are important because they show that the AMD chip can outperform the Intel chip in certain synthetic workloads that are often correlated with general application performance.

The Intel Core i5-3360M, on the other hand, builds its case on consistency. It wins the Cinebench R15 multicore test with a score of 246 compared to 242, a 1.6% margin. In Cinebench R20 multicore, it wins 1029 to 1010, a 1.8% delta. The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows a similar story, with Intel winning 2451 to 2407, a 1.8% margin. In the single-core Cinebench tests, Intel maintains its lead, winning R20 with 145 points over 142 (a 2.1% delta) and R23 with 346 points over 339 (a 2% delta). While no single Cinebench win is as large as AMD's Geekbench multicore victory, the Intel chip's ability to win every iteration of the Cinebench test suggests a more robust architecture for that rendering workload.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FX-8800P has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 843, compared to the Intel Core i5-3360M's average of 835.

Q: Is the AMD FX-8800P better than the Intel Core i5-3360M in any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the AMD FX-8800P wins the Geekbench multicore test by 11.2% (1234 vs 1110) and the Geekbench single-core test by 1.2% (524 vs 518).

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

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M is the winner, scoring 2451 compared to the AMD FX-8800P's 2407, a difference of 1.8%.

Q: What is the performance percentile for both of these CPUs?

A: Both the AMD FX-8800P and the Intel Core i5-3360M are in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The AMD FX-8800P has 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i5-3360M has 2 physical cores, though both support 4 threads.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-3360M win more head-to-head benchmarks than the AMD FX-8800P?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i5-3360M wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the AMD FX-8800P winning the remaining 2.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD FX-8800P uses the Excavator architecture, part of the Carrizo generation, and is manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It features 4 cores and 4 threads and has a large die size of 250 mm², containing 3,100 million transistors. Its cache hierarchy is structured as 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module. In contrast, the Intel Core i5-3360M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, manufactured on a more advanced 22 nm process by Intel. This is a dual-core processor with 4 threads and a much smaller die size of 118 mm². Its cache structure is different as well, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a 3 MB shared L3 cache.

These architectural choices lead to significant differences in power and performance characteristics. The AMD part has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 35 watts, a notable difference that impacts thermal and power management in mobile systems. The AMD FX-8800P also integrates a Radeon R7 8CU graphics unit, whereas the Intel chip features Intel HD 4000. The memory support also differs, with the FX-8800P supporting DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the i5-3360M's memory support details are not available in the data. The AMD processor uses an AMD Socket FP4 and supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes, while the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 1023.

Specification Differences

The core specifications of these two mobile processors highlight their distinct design goals. The AMD FX-8800P has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-3360M runs at a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The Intel chip has a significantly higher TDP at 35 watts, compared to the AMD's 15 watts, which is a crucial difference for system cooling and battery life. The AMD processor offers 4 cores and 4 threads, whereas the Intel offers 2 cores and 4 threads.

The cache configurations are also distinct. The AMD FX-8800P has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache. The Intel Core i5-3360M has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, plus a 3 MB shared L3 cache. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, but the AMD chip specifies a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel chip's bandwidth is not listed. Neither supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers. Their sockets are different, with the AMD using AMD Socket FP4 and the Intel using Intel BGA 1023. The release dates also differ, with the Intel chip released in 2012 and the AMD chip in 2015.