CPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Core i7-880 and the AMD FX-9830P is unusually lopsided. Across all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, the Intel Core i7-880 wins every single matchup, with the AMD FX-9830P failing to secure a single victory. This is not a case of one chip dominating in some workloads while the other takes the lead elsewhere, the Intel part simply outperforms the AMD part in every measured scenario.

The Intel Core i7-880’s strongest showing comes in the multicore tests, where its advantage is most consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel chip scores 294 against AMD’s 282, a 4.3% lead. That same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (1227 vs 1178, a 4.2% gap) and Cinebench R23 multicore (2923 vs 2806, also 4.2%). These are small but consistent margins, suggesting the Intel chip’s extra threads, 8 versus 4, provide a tangible benefit in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though with slightly narrower margins. The Intel Core i7-880 leads by 4.2% in Cinebench R20 single-core (173 vs 166) and by 4% in Cinebench R23 single-core (412 vs 396). While the percentage gaps are nearly identical to the multicore results, the absolute differences are tiny, just 7 points and 16 points respectively, meaning the single-threaded advantage is real but modest in practical terms.

The AMD FX-9830P does have one area where it can claim a functional edge, though it does not appear in the head-to-head benchmarks. Its integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics provide a built-in display output and GPU acceleration capability that the Intel Core i7-880 entirely lacks, as the Intel part has no integrated graphics listed. For a system builder who needs a complete platform without a discrete GPU, the AMD chip offers a capability the Intel chip simply cannot match.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-880 is built on Intel’s 45 nm process with a die size of 296 mm², containing 774 million transistors. It uses the Nehalem architecture under the Lynnfield codename, and its design emphasizes high per-core efficiency with simultaneous multithreading. The AMD FX-9830P, by contrast, is fabricated on GlobalFoundries’ 28 nm process with a 250 mm² die that packs 3,100 million transistors, more than four times the transistor count of the Intel chip, though on a larger process node.

Thread configuration is the most significant architectural divergence. The Intel Core i7-880 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, enabling two threads per core. The AMD FX-9830P provides 4 cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. This directly explains the multicore benchmark results: the Intel chip’s thread advantage allows it to extract more parallelism from rendering workloads, even though both chips have the same physical core count.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Intel Core i7-880 features a three-level cache design: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The AMD FX-9830P uses a different layout with 320 KB of total L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 per module, but critically, it has no L3 cache at all. This missing L3 tier likely contributes to the AMD chip’s consistent deficit in the Cinebench tests, as the Intel part can keep more working data closer to the cores.

Memory support also reflects their different generations. The Intel Core i7-880 uses DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus, while the AMD FX-9830P supports DDR4 with a dual-channel configuration and a listed memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel part has no memory bandwidth figure in the data, but the AMD chip’s newer memory standard does not translate into benchmark wins. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Intel chip provides Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD part offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes.

Clock speeds are close but favor Intel. The Intel Core i7-880 runs at a 3.07 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.73 GHz, while the AMD FX-9830P has a 3.00 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The Intel chip’s slightly higher clocks, combined with its L3 cache and thread advantage, account for the benchmark results. Power envelopes are dramatically different: the Intel part carries a 95 W TDP for the desktop segment, while the AMD chip draws only 35 W in the mobile segment. The AMD part also includes the Radeon R7 8CU integrated graphics, a feature absent from the Intel processor. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore test opens the comparison with the Intel Core i7-880 scoring 294 against 282 for the AMD FX-9830P, a 4.3% margin. This is the largest percentage gap of any head-to-head test, and it establishes the pattern that repeats across the suite. The Intel chip’s 8 threads allow it to distribute the render workload more evenly, producing a meaningful advantage despite the AMD part’s higher transistor count.

Cinebench R20 multicore narrows the gap slightly to 4.2%, with Intel at 1227 and AMD at 1178. The absolute difference of 49 points is the largest of any test, indicating that the multicore advantage scales with workload intensity. The R20 single-core test shows Intel leading 173 to 166, again by 4.2%. This is notable because single-core performance should theoretically be less affected by thread count, the result suggests the Intel architecture’s per-core efficiency is genuinely superior, not just its threading capability.

Cinebench R23 multicore repeats the 4.2% margin with Intel at 2923 and AMD at 2806. The R23 single-core test closes the comparison with a 4% gap, Intel at 412 versus AMD at 396. Across all five tests, the Intel Core i7-880’s lead ranges from 4% to 4.3%, a remarkably tight band. This consistency indicates that the performance difference is systematic, likely stemming from architectural efficiency, cache depth, and thread handling, rather than workload-specific quirks.

The AMD FX-9830P does have additional Geekbench scores in its benchmark list: 1606 in multicore and 605 in single-core. However, no corresponding Intel Geekbench results exist in the head-to-head data, so these cannot be directly compared. The absence of these figures from the head-to-head table means the official comparison remains limited to the Cinebench suite, where Intel wins all five tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-880 outperforms the AMD FX-9830P in every measured benchmark, with consistent margins between 4% and 4.3%. For any workload represented by the Cinebench suite, rendering, 3D modeling, CPU-bound creative tasks, the Intel chip is the better performer. Its 8 threads versus 4, its 8 MB of L3 cache versus none, and its slightly higher clock speeds all contribute to this result.

However, the choice is not purely about raw performance. The AMD FX-9830P operates at a 35 W TDP compared to Intel’s 95 W, making it dramatically more power-efficient. It also includes integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics, enabling a complete system without a discrete GPU. The Intel Core i7-880 has no integrated graphics and requires a separate graphics card. For a compact, low-power mobile system where battery life and heat matter more than rendering throughput, the AMD chip’s efficiency and integrated graphics make it the practical choice despite losing every benchmark.

The Intel Core i7-880 targets the desktop segment with its Socket 1156 platform, while the AMD FX-9830P is a mobile part on Socket FP4. These are different market segments, and the benchmark results reflect that positioning. The Intel chip uses older DDR3 memory, while the AMD part supports DDR4 with a rated 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part’s PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes offers more expansion bandwidth than AMD’s Gen 3 with 8 lanes, though the newer standard on the AMD side partially compensates.

Both processors sit at the 27th percentile among all CPUs, and both have an identical average benchmark score of 1006. Their nearest rivals are the same set of chips: the Intel Core i5-10210Y at the same 1006 average score, the Intel Core i7-2630QM at 1005 (0.1% behind), and the Intel Processor N100 at 1007 (0.1% ahead). This means that in the broader CPU landscape, these two chips are essentially performance equals on average, but in direct head-to-head testing, the Intel Core i7-880 is consistently ahead.

For a user who prioritizes rendering performance and has a discrete GPU available, the Intel Core i7-880 is the clear choice from the data. For a user who needs a low-power, self-contained mobile platform with integrated graphics, the AMD FX-9830P offers the practical advantage, accepting a 4-4.3% performance deficit in exchange for dramatically lower power consumption and a built-in GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multicore performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-880 wins all three multicore Cinebench tests. It scores 294 vs 282 in R15 (4.3% ahead), 1227 vs 1178 in R20 (4.2% ahead), and 2923 vs 2806 in R23 (4.2% ahead).

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-880 leads in both single-core tests. It scores 173 vs 166 in Cinebench R20 single-core (4.2% ahead) and 412 vs 396 in Cinebench R23 single-core (4% ahead).

Q: What is the thread count difference between these processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-880 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD FX-9830P has 4 cores and 4 threads. This means the Intel chip can process two threads per core, while the AMD chip handles one thread per core.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9830P have any advantage over the Intel Core i7-880?

A: Yes. The AMD FX-9830P has a 35 W TDP compared to Intel’s 95 W, making it far more power-efficient. It also includes integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics, which the Intel chip lacks entirely.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Intel Core i7-880 has a three-level cache design with 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The AMD FX-9830P has 320 KB total L1 and 1 MB L2 per module, but has no L3 cache.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for both chips?

A: Both the Intel Core i7-880 and the AMD FX-9830P have an identical average benchmark score of 1006, placing both at the 27th percentile among all CPUs.