AMD FX-9830P vs Intel Core i5-10210Y Comparison

The Intel Core i5-10210Y and AMD FX-9830P are statistically dead even on average aggregate score, both landing at 1006 and occupying the 27th percentile of all CPUs. However, that parity masks a decisive performance split: the Intel part wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the data, by a margin of 5 wins to 0, with deltas between 24% and 24.1% across all Cinebench tests. The story here is not about average scores—it is about how each chip earns that equal average through entirely different workload profiles, and why the Intel i5-10210Y is the superior choice for threaded and single-threaded compute alike.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-10210Y wins everywhere that Cinebench measures. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 350 against the FX-9830P’s 282, a 24.1% advantage. That pattern holds across every generation of the test: R20 multi-core shows 1461 versus 1178 (24% ahead), and R23 multi-core shows 3479 versus 2806 (24% ahead). Single-core results are equally lopsided—R20 single-core sees 206 versus 166 (24.1%), and R23 single-core sees 491 versus 396 (24%). There is no benchmark category in the provided head-to-head data where the AMD FX-9830P takes a win, not even one.

The FX-9830P does have a counterpoint, but it is not in the direct head-to-head list. The AMD chip has a Geekbench multi-core score of 1606 and a single-core score of 605, while the Intel part has no Geekbench scores in the FACT PACK. That absence means the data cannot confirm an Intel win on Geekbench, and the FX-9830P’s Geekbench results stand as its only unique benchmark evidence. Still, for any Cinebench-based workload—which is the standard for render and CPU stress testing—the i5-10210Y is unequivocally faster. The AMD chip’s only potential edge is in unspecified Geekbench tasks, which are not directly comparable to the Intel part’s available scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-10210Y is built on Comet Lake-Y, a 14 nm node from Intel, and features 4 cores with 8 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading. Its base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, and it carries a thermal design power (TDP) of just 9 watts. Cache is organized as 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. It uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket and supports DDR3 memory. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics, and the part is still listed as Active in production.

The AMD FX-9830P is a Bristol Ridge part built on GlobalFoundries’ 28 nm process, with 4 cores and 4 threads—no simultaneous multithreading. Its base clock is much higher at 3.00 GHz, boosting to 3.70 GHz, but its TDP is also far higher at 35 watts, nearly four times the Intel part’s. It uses the AMD Socket FP4, has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 per module, and has no L3 cache at all. Memory support is DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The FX-9830P also has a larger physical footprint: the die size is 250 mm² with 3,100 million transistors, compared to the Intel part which has no listed die size or transistor count. The AMD chip’s integrated graphics are a Radeon R7 8CU, and its production status is End-of-life.

The architectural gulf is clear: Intel uses a smaller 14 nm process with double the threads, a huge clock boost range (from 1.0 GHz to 4.0 GHz), and a large shared L3 cache, while AMD relies on a older 28 nm process, a higher base clock, no L3, and a much larger power envelope. The FX-9830P’s higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 1.00 GHz) does not translate into a benchmark win, which suggests the Intel architecture’s boost behavior and cache hierarchy are far more effective for the tested workloads.

The Verdict

Pick the Intel Core i5-10210Y if you need raw compute performance in Cinebench-style tests. The data is unambiguous: it beats the AMD FX-9830P by 24% to 24.1% in every shared benchmark, including both multi-core and single-core runs. The i5-10210Y’s 8 threads versus 4, its 6 MB of shared L3 versus no L3, and its modern 14 nm node give it a decisive edge despite a much lower base clock. It also consumes far less power (9 watts TDP versus 35 watts), making it the obvious choice for thermally constrained mobile designs.

Pick the AMD FX-9830P if your workload relies on Geekbench and you cannot use Cinebench as a proxy. The FX-9830P has Geekbench scores of 1606 multi-core and 605 single-core, which are the only benchmark results the Intel part does not match. However, the AMD chip is End-of-life, has no L3 cache, and loses every direct comparison to the Intel part. The FX-9830P’s higher base clock (3.00 GHz) and DDR4 memory support do not overcome its architectural disadvantages in the measured tests. For any user comparing these two on the available data, the i5-10210Y is the stronger processor.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i5-10210Y scores 3479, which is 24% higher than the AMD FX-9830P’s 2806.

Q: Are the two CPUs equal in average benchmark performance?

A: Yes, both have an average benchmark score of 1006 and sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9830P have any benchmark wins over the Intel part?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the Intel part wins 5 benchmarks and the AMD part wins 0.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core i5-10210Y has a TDP of 9 watts, while the AMD FX-9830P has a TDP of 35 watts.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9830P support more memory types?

A: It supports DDR4 with dual-channel and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part supports DDR3. However, the Intel part has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD part has no L3 cache.

Q: Which chip has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-10210Y has 8 threads (4 cores), while the AMD FX-9830P has 4 threads (4 cores).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Intel Core i5-10210Y is a 24.1% margin, achieved in three separate tests: Cinebench R15 multi-core (350 versus 282), Cinebench R20 single-core (206 versus 166), and Cinebench R23 single-core (491 versus 396). The multi-core R20 and R23 tests both show a 24% delta, with scores of 1461 versus 1178 and 3479 versus 2806 respectively. These margins are consistent, suggesting a structural advantage rather than a workload-specific fluke.

The single-core results are particularly telling. The FX-9830P has a much higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 1.00 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus 4.00 GHz for Intel. Despite that, the Intel part wins single-core Cinebench by 24.1% in R20 and 24% in R23. This indicates that the Intel architecture’s per-core efficiency, likely aided by the 6 MB shared L3 cache and newer 14 nm process, more than compensates for the AMD chip’s clock speed advantage. The AMD part’s lack of L3 cache is a severe handicap in these tests.

For multi-core, the thread disparity is decisive. The Intel part’s 8 threads allow it to scale beyond the AMD chip’s 4 threads, yielding a 24% win in R23 multi-core (3479 versus 2806). The AMD FX-9830P’s only benchmark evidence outside Cinebench is its Geekbench scores (1606 multi-core, 605 single-core), but since the Intel part has no Geekbench results in the FACT PACK, no cross-comparison is possible. Within the shared benchmark suite, there is no contest.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every key specification. The Intel Core i5-10210Y has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD FX-9830P has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 1000 MHz for Intel versus 3000 MHz for AMD, but boost clocks are 4.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz—Intel’s boost is higher. TDP is 9 watts for Intel versus 35 watts for AMD. Sockets differ (Intel BGA 1440 versus AMD Socket FP4). Process nodes are 14 nm (Intel) versus 28 nm (GlobalFoundries). Cache configurations are completely different: Intel has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3; AMD has 320 KB L1 total, 1 MB L2 per module, and no L3. Memory support is DDR3 for Intel and DDR4 for AMD, with the AMD part also listing dual-channel and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. Transistor count and die size are listed only for AMD (3,100 million transistors, 250 mm²). Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics for Intel and Radeon R7 8CU for AMD. Production status is Active for Intel versus End-of-life for AMD, and release dates are 2019-08-20 for Intel versus 2016-05-30 for AMD. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the data, and both have locked multipliers.