CPU Comparison

The AMD FX-9830P and Intel Core i5-2500S are both end-of-life, quad-core, quad-thread processors that land in the same performance tier, but they achieve that status through very different designs. The data shows a near-total split in benchmark results: the Intel part wins five of seven head-to-head tests, while the AMD part wins the remaining two, with margins that are consistently narrow. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (1006 for AMD vs. 1004 for Intel), placing both at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, yet the specific workload dictates which chip comes out ahead.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i5-2500S establishes a consistent, if modest, lead across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel chip scores 288 against AMD's 282, a 2.1% advantage. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where Intel scores 1204 versus AMD's 1178, a 2.2% margin. The single-core Cinebench results are similarly tight: Intel wins R20 single-core 169 to 166 (1.8% ahead) and R23 single-core 404 to 396 (2% ahead). The largest Cinebench gap appears in R23 multicore, where Intel's 2867 beats AMD's 2806 by 2.1%. Across all five Cinebench tests, Intel's win margin never exceeds 2.2%, indicating a stable but slim performance advantage in rendering workloads.

The AMD FX-9830P fights back decisively in Geekbench, where the tables turn. In Geekbench multicore, AMD scores 1606 against Intel's 1511, a substantial 6.3% lead. The single-core Geekbench result shows AMD ahead by 4%, scoring 605 versus Intel's 582. These are the two largest margins in the entire comparison, and they are the only tests where AMD wins. The deltaPct values in the head-to-head data show that AMD's Geekbench victories are roughly three times larger (in percentage terms) than Intel's Cinebench victories, though the absolute score differences are small.

Interpreting these numbers, the Intel i5-2500S appears better optimized for the Cinebench family of rendering tasks, while the AMD FX-9830P excels in Geekbench's broader system-level assessments. The overall win count (5 for Intel, 2 for AMD) suggests Intel has the more consistent profile, but the Geekbench results prevent any claim of total dominance. Notably, both processors share identical boost clocks (3.70 GHz), yet their benchmark trajectories diverge, a hint that architectural efficiency, not raw clock speed, drives the differences.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has an average benchmark score of 1006, while the Intel Core i5-2500S scores 1004. This 2-point difference is negligible and places both at the 27th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How large is Intel's biggest win over AMD?

A: Intel's largest margin is 2.2% in Cinebench R20 multicore, where it scores 1204 against AMD's 1178. All five of Intel's wins fall within a 1.8% to 2.2% range.

Q: What is AMD's best result relative to Intel?

A: AMD's strongest showing is in Geekbench multicore, where it scores 1606 versus Intel's 1511, a 6.3% advantage. This is the single largest deltaPct in the head-to-head data.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both the AMD FX-9830P and Intel Core i5-2500S have 4 cores and 4 threads. They also share the same 3.70 GHz boost clock speed.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-2500S wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head tests, while the AMD FX-9830P wins 2. Intel's wins are all in Cinebench tests, and AMD's are both in Geekbench tests.

Q: Are the benchmark scores close enough to call the processors equivalent?

A: The average scores are within 0.2% of each other (1006 vs. 1004), and both sit at the 27th percentile. However, the workload-specific results show meaningful divergence, with Intel ahead in rendering and AMD ahead in Geekbench.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-2500S is the clear choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. Every single Cinebench test, R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multicore variants, goes to Intel. If a user's primary tasks involve CPU-based rendering or 3D scene creation, the data consistently favors Intel by roughly 2%. The uniformity of these results suggests that Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture handles the Cinebench instruction mix more efficiently, despite running at a lower base clock (2.70 GHz vs. AMD's 3.00 GHz) and consuming more power (65W TDP vs. 35W).

The AMD FX-9830P wins in Geekbench, which is often used as a more general-purpose benchmark covering everything from encryption to image processing. AMD's 6.3% multicore lead and 4% single-core lead in Geekbench indicate that the Excavator architecture is better suited to diverse, real-world system tasks. For users who prioritize general responsiveness or run a mix of applications rather than pure rendering, AMD's Geekbench advantage is the more relevant metric. The two Geekbench wins are also AMD's only victories, making this a narrow but distinct use-case split.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their physical and platform specifications. The AMD FX-9830P has a base clock of 3.00 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-2500S runs at 2.70 GHz; both boost to 3.70 GHz. TDP is a major differentiator: AMD is rated at 35W, while Intel draws 65W, a 30W gap that reflects AMD's mobile-oriented design. The AMD chip uses the AMD Socket FP4, whereas Intel uses the Intel Socket 1155. Memory support differs entirely: AMD supports DDR4, while Intel supports DDR3, though both use dual-channel buses. AMD lists a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while Intel's is not specified in the data. PCIe lanes also differ: AMD provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: AMD features Radeon R7 8CU, while Intel has Intel HD 2000. Both have locked multipliers, no ECC support, and neither has a launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these chips is generational and fundamental. AMD's FX-9830P is built on the Excavator architecture (codename Bristol Ridge) using a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while Intel's i5-2500S uses the Sandy Bridge architecture on a 32 nm process at Intel. AMD's die contains 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, compared to Intel's 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die, a notable difference in transistor density and count. Cache configurations are completely different: AMD offers 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache, while Intel provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 6 MB L3 cache. Intel's large shared L3 cache likely contributes to its Cinebench strength, whereas AMD's lack of L3 forces reliance on its L2 and memory bandwidth. The AMD part is a mobile-market segment chip with a 2016 release date, while Intel's is a desktop-market chip from 2011. These architectural differences explain the benchmark split: Intel's older but L3-equipped Sandy Bridge excels at sustained rendering, while AMD's newer, denser Excavator design with DDR4 support performs better in Geekbench's varied workloads.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Core i5-2500S is the safer recommendation for rendering-focused tasks. Its five Cinebench wins, while narrow, are consistent across multiple versions of the benchmark, and it matches the AMD chip in both core count and boost clock. The Intel part also offers twice the PCIe lanes (16 vs. 8), which could matter for discrete GPU or expansion card bandwidth. However, it comes with a 65W TDP versus AMD's 35W, making Intel the less power-efficient option on paper.

The AMD FX-9830P is the pick for Geekbench-style general performance, where it leads by 6.3% multicore and 4% single-core. Its DDR4 memory support and lower TDP make it a more modern, power-conscious platform, and its 3,100 million transistors on a 28 nm process represent a newer design generation. Users who value lower power draw or need DDR4 compatibility should lean toward AMD, while those who prioritize rendering consistency should choose Intel. Neither chip is a clear overall winner, the 27th percentile ranking for both and the sub-2.2% margins of Intel's wins suggest these are closely matched processors. The choice ultimately hinges on whether the workload resembles Cinebench (favoring Intel) or Geekbench (favoring AMD).