CPU Comparison

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 i5-4300M averages 1004. The difference is only 0.2%, placing both processors at the 27th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD FX-9830P wins all four multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 282 versus 253 in Cinebench R15 (11.5% ahead), 1178 versus 1056 in R20 (11.6% ahead), and 2806 versus 2515 in R23 (11.6% ahead). The Intel chip only takes Geekbench multicore, 1817 versus 1606, an 11.6% margin.

Q: Which processor is stronger in single-threaded performance?

A: The results are split. The AMD FX-9830P leads in Cinebench R20 single-core (166 versus 149, 11.4% ahead) and R23 single-core (396 versus 355, 11.5% ahead). However, the Intel Core i5-4300M dominates Geekbench single-core with 882 versus 605, a 31.4% advantage.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core i5-4300M has 2 cores and 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to match thread count.

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The Intel Core i5-4300M uses a 22 nm process, while the AMD FX-9830P is built on a 28 nm node. Intel’s process is smaller, though the AMD chip integrates more transistors: 3,100 million versus 1,400 million.

Q: What are the release dates for these two mobile processors?

A: The AMD FX-9830P was released on 2016-05-30, while the Intel Core i5-4300M launched earlier on 2013-08-31. The AMD part is marked as end-of-life in production status.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The AMD FX-9830P wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head benchmarks, taking every Cinebench test by margins between 11.4% and 11.6%. For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the AMD part is the consistent choice. Its 4 physical cores give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded tasks, reflected in scores like 2806 versus 2515 in Cinebench R23 multicore.

The Intel Core i5-4300M, however, wins the two Geekbench tests, and its single-core Geekbench victory is decisive: 882 versus 605, a 31.4% gap. This suggests that in Geekbench-specific workloads, the Intel architecture extracts significantly more performance per clock. The Intel chip also matches the AMD part in overall percentile ranking (both at 27th), despite having half the physical cores.

For synthetic rendering and parallel compute, the AMD FX-9830P is the stronger pick. For Geekbench-oriented tasks or scenarios where the Intel chip’s 22 nm process and smaller die (118 mm² versus 250 mm²) translate into efficiency, the Core i5-4300M holds its own. Neither processor is a clear overall winner; the choice depends entirely on the benchmark suite in question.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD FX-9830P establishes its dominance in Cinebench across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 282 against the Intel’s 253, a difference of 11.5%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the AMD chip scores 1178 versus 1056, an 11.6% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore shows the same margin: 2806 versus 2515, again 11.6%. Even in single-core Cinebench tests, the AMD part wins. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 166 versus 149 (11.4% ahead), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 396 versus 355 (11.5% ahead).

The Intel Core i5-4300M strikes back in Geekbench. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 1817 versus the AMD’s 1606, a margin of 11.6% in Intel’s favor. The Geekbench single-core result is even more lopsided: 882 versus 605, giving Intel a 31.4% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction across all seven benchmarks.

The pattern is striking. In Cinebench, the AMD FX-9830P is consistently about 11.5% faster. In Geekbench, the Intel Core i5-4300M is consistently faster, with the single-core gap more than double the multicore gap. The two benchmark suites clearly stress different aspects of the architectures, and each processor has a distinct home turf.

Specification Differences

The most fundamental difference is core count. The AMD FX-9830P has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i5-4300M has 2 cores and 4 threads. Both have identical thread counts, but the AMD part uses physical cores while the Intel chip relies on Hyper-Threading.

Clock speeds are similar but favor AMD. The FX-9830P has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The i5-4300M has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The AMD chip runs 0.40 GHz higher at base and 0.10 GHz higher at boost.

Thermal design power is close: 35 W for the AMD FX-9830P versus 37 W for the Intel Core i5-4300M. The Intel part draws slightly more, despite having fewer physical cores.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD FX-9830P has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module. The Intel Core i5-4300M has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, plus 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip has no L3 cache listed.

Memory support is another split. The AMD FX-9830P supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-4300M supports DDR3, with no memory bus or bandwidth figures listed.

Other differences: The AMD chip uses an AMD Socket FP4, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket G3. The AMD FX-9830P has PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip has no PCIe data listed. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon R7 8CU for AMD versus Intel HD 5000 for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FX-9830P is built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, using a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It integrates 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel Core i5-4300M uses the Haswell architecture, also codenamed Haswell, on a 22 nm process from Intel. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a much smaller 118 mm² die.

The transistor density difference is stark. Intel packs roughly 11.9 million transistors per square millimeter (1,400 million / 118 mm²), while AMD manages about 12.4 million per square millimeter (3,100 million / 250 mm²). Despite the larger node, the AMD die is more than twice the physical size.

Cache architecture reflects the design philosophy of each company. The AMD FX-9830P uses a per-module L2 cache design with no L3 cache, typical of the Excavator line’s module-based approach. The Intel Core i5-4300M uses per-core L1 and L2 caches, plus a shared 3 MB L3 cache, a more conventional hierarchical design.

The AMD part supports DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Intel chip uses DDR3 with no bandwidth figure provided. This memory generation difference is significant for workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive.

Both processors target the mobile segment, but their release dates differ by nearly three years. The Intel Core i5-4300M launched on 2013-08-31; the AMD FX-9830P followed on 2016-05-30. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-9830P wins in Cinebench-based rendering workloads. It takes all four Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single and multicore) by margins of 11.4% to 11.6%. For users running Cinebench as a proxy for rendering or 3D modeling, the AMD part is the clear choice. Its 4 physical cores provide a consistent advantage in both multi-threaded and single-threaded Cinebench tests.

The Intel Core i5-4300M wins in Geekbench workloads. It takes Geekbench multicore by 11.6% and Geekbench single-core by 31.4%. The single-core gap is the largest margin in the entire comparison, indicating that the Haswell architecture’s per-core efficiency is significantly better in Geekbench’s test methodology. For users whose workloads resemble Geekbench’s mix of integer, floating-point, and memory tests, the Intel part is the stronger option.

The overall win count favors AMD: 5 wins versus 2 for Intel. However, the magnitude of Intel’s Geekbench single-core win (31.4%) is nearly three times larger than any single AMD win. The AMD wins are consistent but narrow; the Intel win is lopsided but confined to one benchmark family.

For a system where Cinebench-style rendering is the primary task, the AMD FX-9830P is the data-backed pick. For Geekbench-oriented workloads or scenarios that reward single-thread efficiency, the Intel Core i5-4300M justifies its selection despite having only 2 physical cores. The two processors are near-equal in average score (1006 versus 1004), so the deciding factor should be the specific application mix.