AMD PRO A10-8770 vs Intel Core i3-4160T Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-8770 and Intel Core i3-4160T are both entry-level desktop processors that land in the 29th percentile of all CPUs, but their benchmark results diverge sharply despite similar average scores. The AMD part wins every single Cinebench comparison in the head-to-head data, with margins consistently around 15%, while the Intel chip counters with a significantly lower 35W TDP and a smaller physical footprint. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy: the AMD PRO A10-8770 is the faster processor in multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads, but the Intel Core i3-4160T offers a more power-efficient package for constrained builds.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4160T has 2 physical cores and 4 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading. This gives the AMD part a raw core count advantage, though the Intel chip matches its thread count.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 has an average benchmark score of 1046, while the Intel Core i3-4160T scores 1043. The difference is a mere 0.3%, placing both chips in the same performance tier overall, but the distribution of scores is not uniform across individual tests.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160T has a TDP of 35W, while the AMD PRO A10-8770 has a TDP of 65W. This makes the Intel part substantially more power-efficient, which is a key factor for small form factor builds or systems with limited cooling.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i3-4160T supports DDR3 memory in dual-channel mode, with no bandwidth figure listed in the data.

Q: What are their integrated graphics solutions?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 features Radeon R7 integrated graphics, while the Intel Core i3-4160T uses Intel HD 4400. The AMD solution is generally expected to be more capable for graphics tasks, though no direct benchmark comparison is provided.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No. The AMD PRO A10-8770 uses AMD Socket AM4, while the Intel Core i3-4160T uses Intel Socket 1150. This means they are not interchangeable and require different motherboards.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A10-8770 wins in every single benchmark category where both chips have data. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 306 versus 265 for the Intel, a 15.5% advantage. The margin holds steady across all other Cinebench tests: 15.4% in R20 multi-core (1276 vs 1106), 15.4% in R20 single-core (180 vs 156), 15.4% in R23 multi-core (3040 vs 2635), and 15.3% in R23 single-core (429 vs 372). This consistency suggests a fundamental performance gap that is not workload-dependent.

The Intel Core i3-4160T's only advantage is in power consumption and platform characteristics. Its 35W TDP is roughly half the AMD part's 65W TDP, which makes it the clear choice for systems where heat output and energy draw are primary concerns. The Intel chip also has a smaller die size at 177 mm² versus 250 mm² for the AMD, and it uses fewer transistors (1,400 million vs 3,100 million), indicating a more efficient design. However, the data does not show any benchmark where the Intel chip wins on raw performance.

Architecture Differences

The AMD PRO A10-8770 is built on the Excavator architecture (codename Carrizo) using a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It features 4 cores with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The chip has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache. It uses a large 250 mm² die with 3,100 million transistors.

The Intel Core i3-4160T uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process manufactured by Intel. It has 2 cores with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and no boost clock. The cache layout is different: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. Its die size is 177 mm² with 1,400 million transistors. The Intel part also has a release date of 2014-07-20, while the AMD part has no release date listed.

Both processors use PCIe Gen 3 and do not support ECC memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not officially supported. The AMD part is listed as part of the "A10 (Carrizo)" generation, while the Intel is "Core i3 (Haswell)".

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD PRO A10-8770 | Intel Core i3-4160T |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | None |

| TDP | 65W | 35W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Haswell |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 177 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 320 KB (total) | 64 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 256 KB per core |

| L3 Cache | None | 3 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 | Intel HD 4400 |

| Release Date | Not listed | 2014-07-20 |

The most significant differences are the core count, clock speeds, TDP, and memory type. The AMD part has twice the physical cores and higher clocks, but the Intel part uses roughly half the power. The cache hierarchy is also fundamentally different: AMD uses a large L1 and L2 with no L3, while Intel uses smaller per-core L1/L2 with a shared L3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a complete sweep for the AMD PRO A10-8770 across all five Cinebench tests. The smallest margin is 15.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core (429 vs 372), and the largest is 15.5% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (306 vs 265). The R20 tests show 15.4% margins for both multi-core (1276 vs 1106) and single-core (180 vs 156). The R23 multi-core test shows 3040 versus 2635, also a 15.4% difference.

These consistent margins are notable because they span different Cinebench versions and workload types. The AMD part wins by nearly the same percentage whether the test is single-core or multi-core, suggesting that its advantage comes from both higher clock speeds and the additional physical cores. The Intel chip's Hyper-Threading allows it to match thread counts, but the 4 physical cores of the AMD part appear to provide a more efficient execution path.

The Intel Core i3-4160T does have additional Geekbench scores that are not part of the head-to-head comparison: 1840 in multi-core and 926 in single-core. The AMD part does not have Geekbench scores listed, so no direct comparison is possible for that benchmark suite. However, the Cinebench results alone provide a comprehensive picture of the performance gap.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD PRO A10-8770 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons with margins of at least 15.3%, and its average benchmark score of 1046 edges out the Intel's 1043. For users who prioritize raw compute performance in Cinebench workloads, the AMD part is the clear choice.

The Intel Core i3-4160T is the better option only when power efficiency is the primary constraint. Its 35W TDP versus the AMD's 65W TDP makes it suitable for systems with minimal cooling or power budgets. The Intel chip also uses a smaller die (177 mm² vs 250 mm²) and fewer transistors (1,400 million vs 3,100 million), which contributes to its efficiency.

Both processors sit in the 29th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are entry-level parts that will handle basic desktop tasks but are not competitive with modern mid-range or high-end chips. The AMD PRO A10-8770's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-6350HQ (same average score of 1046), the AMD Athlon X4 950 (1047, 0.1% higher), and the AMD PRO A10-9700 (1045, 0.1% lower). The Intel Core i3-4160T's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 (1045, 0.2% higher), the AMD PRO A10-9700 (1045, 0.2% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U (1041, 0.2% lower).

The choice ultimately comes down to platform and power requirements. The AMD PRO A10-8770 offers better performance with DDR4 memory support and a modern AM4 socket, but at a higher power cost. The Intel Core i3-4160T is a lower-power part with DDR3 memory that trades significant performance for efficiency. The benchmark results point to the AMD chip for anyone who needs the extra compute headroom, while the Intel part is only preferable in power-constrained scenarios.