AMD PRO A10-8750B vs Intel Core i5-3360M Comparison

The Intel Core i5-3360M and AMD PRO A10-8750B are two processors from different eras and market segments, yet they land in the same performance percentile. The data shows a clear split: AMD’s quad-core Steamroller design dominates in Cinebench multi-threaded workloads, while Intel’s dual-core Ivy Bridge part with Hyper-Threading wins decisively in Geekbench tests. With the AMD PRO A10-8750B taking 5 of 7 head-to-head benchmarks and the Intel Core i5-3360M winning the remaining 2 by larger margins, the choice depends entirely on whether the workload favors Cinebench’s rendering engine or Geekbench’s mixed integer/float tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8750B has 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i5-3360M has 2 physical cores. Both processors support 4 threads total, meaning the Intel part relies on Hyper-Threading to match the AMD’s thread count.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M has an average benchmark score of 835, while the AMD PRO A10-8750B scores 821. This puts the Intel part 1.7% ahead on average, though both sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How do they compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8750B scores 2525 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, beating the Intel Core i5-3360M’s 2451 by 2.9%. This is consistent with AMD’s wins across all Cinebench versions tested.

Q: Which processor wins in Geekbench single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M wins Geekbench single-core with a score of 518, which is 24.5% higher than the AMD PRO A10-8750B’s 416. This is the largest margin of victory in any benchmark between the two.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M has a TDP of 35 watts, while the AMD PRO A10-8750B has a TDP of 95 watts. The AMD part consumes nearly three times the power budget of the Intel mobile chip.

Q: What is the release date for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M was released on 2012-05-31, while the AMD PRO A10-8750B came later on 2015-09-28. The AMD part is listed as end-of-life production status, whereas the Intel part has no production status listed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a nuanced picture. For users running Cinebench-based workloads — 3D rendering, animation, or video encoding that scales with multi-threading — the AMD PRO A10-8750B is the stronger choice. It wins all five Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 2.7% in R20 single-core to 3.1% in R15 multi-core. The AMD part’s 4 physical cores give it a consistent edge in these threaded workloads, despite its lower average benchmark score overall.

However, the Intel Core i5-3360M is the pick for Geekbench-centric tasks. Its 24.5% lead in Geekbench single-core and 12.7% lead in multi-core are substantial, indicating better performance in everyday computing tasks like web browsing, office productivity, and light photo editing. The Intel chip achieves this with a 35-watt TDP versus AMD’s 95 watts, making it dramatically more power-efficient.

The verdict splits cleanly: choose the AMD PRO A10-8750B for rendering and multi-threaded content creation; choose the Intel Core i5-3360M for general-purpose computing where Geekbench scores matter and power consumption is a concern. The AMD part’s near-total Cinebench sweep cannot offset Intel’s dominant Geekbench victories, but the sheer number of AMD wins (5 vs 2) suggests it is the more versatile processor for mixed workloads, provided the higher TDP is acceptable.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD PRO A10-8750B establishes its dominance early in Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 254 against the Intel Core i5-3360M’s 246 — a 3.1% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where AMD scores 1060 versus Intel’s 1029, a 2.9% lead. The margins tighten slightly in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2525 vs 2451, 2.9%) and single-core tests, where AMD wins by 2.7% in R20 (149 vs 145) and 2.8% in R23 (356 vs 346). AMD’s largest single-core Cinebench win is modest, but it is consistent across every iteration.

The Intel Core i5-3360M fights back decisively in Geekbench. In single-core, Intel scores 518 against AMD’s 416 — a 24.5% blowout that dwarfs any AMD margin. The multi-core Geekbench result tells a similar story: Intel posts 1110 versus AMD’s 985, a 12.7% lead. These are not narrow victories; they are category-level differences. Intel’s Ivy Bridge architecture clearly excels at Geekbench’s workload patterns, while AMD’s Steamroller cores favor Cinebench’s rendering pipeline.

Looking at the deltaPct values, AMD’s wins are all clustered between -2.7% and -3.1%, showing remarkable consistency across Cinebench versions. Intel’s wins are far more variable, with a 12.7% gap in multi-core and 24.5% in single-core. This asymmetry suggests that the Intel Core i5-3360M is not merely better in Geekbench — it is categorically superior in that test suite, while AMD’s Cinebench advantage is real but modest in percentage terms.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their core configurations. The Intel Core i5-3360M offers 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD PRO A10-8750B provides 4 cores and 4 threads. Clock speeds favor AMD: its base clock runs at 3.60 GHz with a boost to 4.00 GHz, whereas Intel operates at 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The TDP difference is stark — 35 watts for Intel versus 95 watts for AMD — reflecting the mobile versus desktop market segmentation.

Memory support distinguishes them further. The AMD PRO A10-8750B explicitly supports DDR3 memory with a peak bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel Core i5-3360M has no memory support listed but shares the same dual-channel memory bus. The AMD part includes PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas Intel lists no PCIe configuration. Cache hierarchies differ: Intel provides 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 3 MB shared L3, while AMD offers 256 KB L1 and 4 MB L2 total, with no L3 cache.

The integrated graphics are also distinct: Intel pairs with HD 4000, AMD with Radeon R7. Socket compatibility is entirely separate — Intel uses BGA 1023, AMD uses Socket FM2+. The AMD part is marked as end-of-life, while Intel’s production status is unlisted. These specification gaps explain the benchmark results: AMD’s higher clocks and extra physical cores drive its Cinebench wins, while Intel’s architectural efficiency and lower power envelope contribute to its Geekbench superiority.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-3360M is built on Ivy Bridge, a 22 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry, with a die size of 118 mm². The AMD PRO A10-8750B uses Steamroller architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with a substantially larger die at 245 mm² and 2,411 million transistors. This size difference reflects AMD’s quad-core design versus Intel’s dual-core with Hyper-Threading.

The cache architecture diverges sharply. Intel allocates 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 3 MB shared L3 cache — a classic Intel hierarchy that benefits from the shared pool. AMD provides 256 KB L1 and 4 MB L2 with no L3 cache, relying on a larger L2 to compensate. The absence of L3 in AMD’s design is a notable architectural difference, though it does not prevent AMD from winning Cinebench tests.

The integrated graphics also differ: Intel’s HD 4000 is a mature Ivy Bridge-era GPU, while AMD’s Radeon R7 is part of the Godaveri APU design, indicating a stronger focus on GPU compute. The AMD part’s 95-watt TDP versus Intel’s 35-watt TDP highlights the architectural trade-off: AMD spends more power on higher clocks and extra cores, while Intel achieves competitive performance at a fraction of the power draw. The foundry difference (Intel vs GlobalFoundries) and process node gap (22 nm vs 28 nm) further separate the designs, with Intel’s smaller node partially explaining its efficiency advantage.

Where Each One Wins

AMD PRO A10-8750B — Rendering and Multi-Threaded Workloads: The AMD part wins all five Cinebench tests, making it the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and batch image processing. Its 4 physical cores provide a genuine multi-threading advantage that Intel’s Hyper-Threading cannot fully match in Cinebench’s workload. The consistency of AMD’s wins — never less than 2.7% ahead in any Cinebench test — indicates reliable performance across rendering scenarios. This is the processor for users who prioritize Cinebench R15, R20, or R23 scores as their primary benchmark.

Intel Core i5-3360M — General Purpose and Power-Sensitive Computing: The Intel chip wins Geekbench single-core by 24.5% and multi-core by 12.7%, making it superior for everyday tasks that Geekbench measures: web browsing, office applications, and light multitasking. Its 35-watt TDP versus AMD’s 95 watts makes it the logical choice for laptops or compact systems where heat and power draw matter. The Intel part’s smaller die size (118 mm² vs 245 mm²) and older release date (2012 vs 2015) suggest a more mature, optimized design that delivers higher efficiency per watt in the Geekbench test suite.

The Tie-Breaker: For mixed workloads, the AMD PRO A10-8750B wins 5 of 7 benchmarks, suggesting broader applicability. However, the Intel Core i5-3360M’s wins are so lopsided that they may matter more in real-world usage. Users should match the processor to their dominant workload: AMD for rendering, Intel for responsive general computing with lower power consumption.