AMD FX-9800P vs Intel Core i5-3210M Comparison

Intel Core i5-3210M and AMD FX-9800P are two mobile processors from different eras and design philosophies, yet their recorded benchmark scores place them in the same performance tier. The database shows both chips sitting at the 20th percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 758 for the Intel part and 745 for the AMD part. Across seven head-to-head tests, the Intel Core i5-3210M wins six, while the AMD FX-9800P takes a single victory, though the margins are often razor-thin. This analysis walks through the architectural split, the specification differences, and the benchmark results that define this pairing.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Geekbench score?

A: The Intel Core i5-3210M scores 587, which is 17.9% ahead of the AMD FX-9800P's 498 in the Geekbench single-core test.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R15 multi-core performance?

A: They are exactly tied. Both the Intel Core i5-3210M and the AMD FX-9800P record a score of 210 in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-3210M averages 758 points, while the AMD FX-9800P averages 745 points, a difference that places them within 1.7% of each other.

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The AMD FX-9800P has 4 physical cores, whereas the Intel Core i5-3210M has 2 physical cores but supports 4 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two mobile processors?

A: The AMD FX-9800P has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Core i5-3210M has a 35 W TDP, making the AMD part the lower-power design.

Q: Which processor wins the Geekbench multi-core test?

A: The AMD FX-9800P wins with a score of 1127, compared to the Intel Core i5-3210M's 1116, a 1% margin.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-3210M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, using a 22 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It is a dual-core part with Hyper-Threading, providing 2 cores and 4 threads. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The die size is recorded at 118 mm². This chip was released in May 2012 and targets the mobile segment with a 35 W TDP. It uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B) and integrates Intel HD 4000 graphics.

The AMD FX-9800P belongs to the Bristol Ridge generation, built on the Excavator architecture using a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It is a quad-core processor with 4 threads, meaning it does not rely on simultaneous multithreading. The cache setup differs substantially: 320 KB of L1, 1 MB of L2 per module, and no L3 cache at all. The die size is 250 mm², and the transistor count is listed at 3,100 million. This chip launched in May 2016 with a 15 W TDP, uses the AMD Socket FP4, and features Radeon R7 8CU integrated graphics. It supports DDR4 memory and provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

The architectural contrast is stark. Intel uses a smaller process node, a shared L3 cache, and relies on fewer, faster cores with threading. AMD counters with double the physical cores, a larger process node, and a cache design that omits L3 entirely, compensating with larger L2 per module. The AMD part is also the more recent release by four years and carries a significantly lower TDP, which suggests a different design priority toward power efficiency. The Intel part, despite being older, has a smaller die and a more conventional mobile layout.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a near-total performance parity between these two processors, with the Intel Core i5-3210M holding a slight edge in overall wins. The Intel chip wins 6 of 7 head-to-head tests, but the margins are minimal: 0.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 0.3% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and 0.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The only meaningful delta is the 17.9% lead in Geekbench single-core, which favors Intel. The AMD FX-9800P takes Geekbench multi-core by 1%, but that is its only win.

For users prioritizing single-threaded responsiveness, the data points to the Intel Core i5-3210M. Its Geekbench single-core score of 587 versus 498 is the largest gap in the entire comparison. For users who need lower power consumption, the AMD FX-9800P is the clear choice with a 15 W TDP versus 35 W, and it also offers four physical cores, which may benefit workloads that scale with core count rather than thread count. However, the recorded multi-core scores show the AMD advantage is negligible or nonexistent in Cinebench tests, where the Intel part either ties or edges ahead.

If the decision rests solely on benchmark scores, the Intel Core i5-3210M is the safer pick due to its consistent, if narrow, wins across most tests. If the decision rests on power envelope and core count, the AMD FX-9800P justifies itself. Both processors sit at the 20th percentile, and their nearest rivals cluster around the same average scores, so neither offers a dramatic performance advantage over the other.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Core i5-3210M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD FX-9800P has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for Intel and 2.70 GHz for AMD; boost clocks are 3.10 GHz and 3.60 GHz, respectively. TDP is 35 W for Intel versus 15 W for AMD. Sockets are entirely different: Intel Socket G2 (988B) versus AMD Socket FP4.

Process technology diverges: Intel uses 22 nm, AMD uses 28 nm. The die sizes are 118 mm² for Intel and 250 mm² for AMD, with AMD listing 3,100 million transistors while Intel does not record a transistor count. Cache configurations are not comparable: Intel has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3; AMD has 320 KB L1 total, 1 MB L2 per module, and no L3. Memory support differs: AMD lists DDR4 support and a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while Intel does not record a memory support field. PCIe is only listed for AMD (Gen 3, 8 lanes CPU only). Integrated graphics are Intel HD 4000 versus Radeon R7 8CU. Release dates are May 2012 for Intel and May 2016 for AMD. The AMD part is marked end-of-life, while Intel does not record a production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows a perfect tie at 210 for both processors. This is notable because the AMD FX-9800P has twice the physical cores, yet the Intel dual-core with Hyper-Threading matches it exactly. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, Intel edges ahead with 879 versus 876, a 0.3% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the pattern: Intel scores 2095, AMD scores 2088, again a 0.3% lead. These results indicate that the AMD FX-9800P's additional cores do not translate into a multi-core advantage in Cinebench workloads, likely due to the older Excavator architecture and the lack of L3 cache.

Single-core results show a similar story. Cinebench R20 single-core is a tie at 123 for both. Cinebench R23 single-core gives Intel a 295 to 294 lead, a 0.3% margin. The Geekbench single-core test is where the Intel chip pulls away decisively: 587 versus 498, a 17.9% advantage. This is the largest win for either side and suggests that the Intel Ivy Bridge architecture delivers significantly better single-thread performance in Geekbench's specific workload mix.

The Geekbench multi-core test flips the result. AMD wins with 1127 against Intel's 1116, a 1% margin. This is the only test where AMD comes out ahead, and it is notably the margin is small. The Intel chip wins 6 out of 7 tests, but the deltas are mostly under 1%, with the single exception of the 17.9% Geekbench single-core win.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3210M dominates in single-threaded workloads. Its Geekbench single-core score of 587 is 17.9% higher than the AMD part's 498, and it also wins or ties every Cinebench single-core test. For applications that rely on single-core performance, such as legacy software, certain productivity tasks, or lightly threaded games, the data shows Intel as the stronger option. The Intel chip also wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests, albeit by margins of 0.3% or less, meaning it holds a slight edge even in multi-threaded rendering workloads.

The AMD FX-9800P wins the Geekbench multi-core test with a 1% margin, which is its only head-to-head victory. This suggests that in certain multi-threaded scenarios, specifically those measured by Geekbench, the AMD part's four physical cores can provide a small advantage. The AMD chip also offers a much lower TDP of 15 W versus 35 W, which is a significant differentiator for battery life and thermal management in thin-and-light laptops, even though this is not a benchmark score. Additionally, the AMD part supports DDR4 memory and has PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes, features that are not recorded for the Intel chip.

In summary, the Intel Core i5-3210M is the winner for raw single-core performance and for most multi-core benchmarks, with the Geekbench single-core test showing the clearest separation. The AMD FX-9800P is the winner for Geekbench multi-core and for power efficiency, making it the better choice for scenarios where a lower power draw and four physical cores are more important than the marginal benchmark differences. The overall average scores, 758 for Intel and 745 for AMD, confirm that the two chips are closely matched, with Intel holding a 1.7% aggregate lead.