CPU Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD FX-8800P and Intel Core i5-3380M are near-identical in aggregate performance, but they achieve that parity through very different strengths. The Intel part wins the majority of head-to-head tests (5 of 7), while the AMD part takes the Geekbench suite decisively. For buyers prioritizing raw multi-threaded rendering in Cinebench, the Core i5-3380M is the safer pick, as it leads every Cinebench iteration by roughly 4%. However, if your workload leans on Geekbench-style integer and floating-point tasks, the FX-8800P's 17% multicore advantage in that specific test is substantial. The data shows both CPUs sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 843 (AMD) and 838 (Intel), a 0.6% gap that is effectively a tie. The Core i5-3380M is the choice for Cinebench-centric productivity, while the FX-8800P is the choice for Geekbench-centric applications. Neither part is a clear winner for all scenarios; the decision hinges on which benchmark suite mirrors your actual usage.

Architecture Differences

The FX-8800P uses AMD's Excavator architecture on the Carrizo codename, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 4 cores with 4 threads, a 2.10 GHz base clock, and a 3.40 GHz boost clock. Its cache hierarchy is modular: 320 KB of L1, 1 MB of L2 per module, and no L3 cache. The Intel Core i5-3380M, by contrast, uses Ivy Bridge architecture, a 22 nm process at Intel, with 2 cores and 4 threads (Hyper-Threading), a 2.90 GHz base clock, and a 3.60 GHz boost clock. Its cache is per-core: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. The AMD chip integrates Radeon R7 8CU graphics, while Intel integrates HD 4000. The FX-8800P has a 15 W TDP versus the Intel's 35 W TDP, a major efficiency gap. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP4, supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, and has a 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth figure. The Intel part uses Socket G2 (988B) and lists no PCIe or memory bandwidth data. The FX-8800P is fabricated on a larger 250 mm² die with 3,100 million transistors; the Intel die is 118 mm² with transistor count not listed. The AMD chip is end-of-life, while the Intel's production status is not specified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite is a clean sweep for Intel, but the margins are narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-3380M scores 252 against the FX-8800P's 242, a 4% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore shows the same pattern: 1051 versus 1010, a 3.9% gap. Single-core Cinebench R20 goes to Intel 148 to 142, a 4.1% margin. Cinebench R23 multicore repeats the trend: 2504 to 2407, again 3.9%. Single-core R23 is 353 to 339, a 4% difference. These consistent 4% wins indicate the Intel architecture's superior per-clock efficiency in Cinebench's workload, despite having half the physical cores. The FX-8800P's four cores cannot overcome the Intel's higher base and boost clocks plus Ivy Bridge's stronger IPC.

The Geekbench results flip the script. In Geekbench multicore, the FX-8800P scores 1234 against 1055 for the i5-3380M, a 17% advantage that is the largest delta in the entire comparison. This is a significant outlier and suggests the FX-8800P's four physical cores are far more effective in Geekbench's parallel workload than in Cinebench's. Geekbench single-core also goes to AMD: 524 versus 505, a 3.8% win. So while Intel dominates Cinebench by around 4% across the board, AMD dominates Geekbench multicore by 17% and single-core by 3.8%. The average benchmark score (843 vs 838) reflects this split: the FX-8800P's two big Geekbench wins nearly cancel out Intel's five Cinebench victories. The deltaPct between the two CPUs overall is just 0.6%, with the AMD part marginally ahead.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD FX-8800P | Intel Core i5-3380M |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP4 | Intel Socket G2 (988B) |

| Architecture | Excavator | Ivy Bridge |

| Codename | Carrizo | Ivy Bridge |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | Not listed |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per module) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | None | 3 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | Not listed |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 8CU | Intel HD 4000 |

| Release Date | 2015-06-01 | 2012-12-31 |

| Part Number | FM880PAAY43KAFM880PAAY43KAD | SR0X7 |

The FX-8800P has double the cores but the same thread count. The Intel chip runs at higher clocks: 0.80 GHz higher base and 0.20 GHz higher boost. The AMD part's TDP is less than half of Intel's. The Intel node is smaller (22 nm vs 28 nm) and the die is less than half the size. AMD's L1 cache is 320 KB total versus Intel's 64 KB per core (128 KB total for two cores). AMD's L2 is 1 MB per module, while Intel's is 256 KB per core (512 KB total). Only Intel has L3 cache, 3 MB shared. Both support dual-channel DDR3 and lack ECC. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M scores 2504 versus the AMD FX-8800P's 2407, a 3.9% advantage for Intel.

Q: Which CPU wins Geekbench multicore and by how much?

A: The AMD FX-8800P wins Geekbench multicore with a score of 1234 versus 1055 for Intel, a 17% lead.

Q: Do these CPUs have the same number of threads?

A: Yes, both have 4 threads. The AMD FX-8800P achieves this with 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i5-3380M uses 2 cores with Hyper-Threading.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD FX-8800P has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Core i5-3380M has a 35 W TDP. The AMD part consumes less than half the power budget.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M has a 3.60 GHz boost clock, compared to the AMD FX-8800P's 3.40 GHz boost clock.

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare?

A: The AMD FX-8800P has an average benchmark score of 843, and the Intel Core i5-3380M scores 838. The AMD part is 0.6% ahead overall.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3380M is the winner in all five Cinebench tests, R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 single-core, R23 multicore, and R23 single-core. This makes it the clear choice for rendering workloads, 3D modeling, and video encoding tasks that rely on Cinebench-style multi-threaded CPU rendering. The lead is modest but consistent at about 4% across every iteration. The Intel part's higher base clock (2.90 GHz vs 2.10 GHz) and boost clock (3.60 GHz vs 3.40 GHz) likely contribute to this edge, as does its 3 MB L3 cache, which the AMD chip lacks entirely. For any user whose primary benchmark is Cinebench, the i5-3380M is the data-backed pick.

The AMD FX-8800P wins both Geekbench tests, multicore by 17% and single-core by 3.8%. This is the larger margin in any single test, and it points to a different performance profile. The FX-8800P's four physical cores provide a substantial advantage in Geekbench's parallel test, suggesting that applications which scale well across cores without relying heavily on cache or clock speed will favor AMD. The single-core Geekbench win is narrower but still meaningful, indicating the Excavator architecture is competitive in this specific workload. For users running Geekbench-style benchmarks, which often correlate with general desktop responsiveness, office productivity, and some scientific workloads, the FX-8800P is the stronger choice. Its 15 W TDP also makes it the superior option for fanless or low-power designs, where the Intel's 35 W TDP would require more substantial cooling. The FX-8800P's 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is a listed advantage over the Intel part, which has no such figure, potentially aiding memory-sensitive tasks. In summary: Intel for Cinebench and sustained rendering, AMD for Geekbench, efficiency, and memory bandwidth.