AMD PRO A10-8770 vs Intel Core i5-6350HQ Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-8770 and Intel Core i5-6350HQ are remarkably close in aggregate performance, with both posting an identical average benchmark score of 1046 and sitting at the 29th percentile among all CPUs. However, that parity is deceptive; the head-to-head benchmark data reveals a consistent and decisive edge for the Intel part across every single test, with a uniform delta of -15.9% against the AMD chip. While the AMD PRO A10-8770 matches the Intel i5-6350HQ in overall standing, the Intel processor dominates the actual workload results, making the choice between them a matter of platform and specific use-case rather than raw performance equivalence.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i5-6350HQ sweeps all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, winning each test by the same margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 364 against the AMD PRO A10-8770's 306, a -15.9% delta that establishes a clear performance gap in rendering workloads. This pattern repeats exactly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where Intel posts 1518 versus AMD's 1276, and again in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with Intel at 3616 and AMD at 3040. The consistency of the -15.9% delta across three generations of Cinebench multi-threaded tests suggests a fundamental architectural advantage for Intel in sustained multi-core execution, not merely a benchmark-specific quirk.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. The Intel Core i5-6350HQ achieves 214 in Cinebench R20 single-core, while the AMD PRO A10-8770 manages only 180, and the -15.9% gap persists in Cinebench R23 single-core with Intel at 510 and AMD at 429. This uniform delta across both single and multi-threaded tests is notable because it indicates that the Intel chip's advantage is not dependent on core count or thread scheduling, but rather on superior per-core efficiency. The AMD PRO A10-8770's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz cannot overcome the Intel part's lower 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost clocks, highlighting that clock speed alone does not determine real-world performance.

The benchmark data also reveals that the win count is entirely one-sided: the Intel Core i5-6350HQ claims 5 wins out of 5 head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the AMD PRO A10-8770. Despite this, the average benchmark scores for both processors are identical at 1046, and the nearest rivals list shows the AMD Athlon X4 950 at 1047 (-0.1% delta), the AMD PRO A10-9700 at 1045 (+0.1% delta), and the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 at 1045 (+0.1% delta). This means the AMD PRO A10-8770 is effectively tied with its direct sibling and a Pentium Gold, while the Intel i5-6350HQ, despite its Cinebench dominance, occupies the same aggregate performance tier. The takeaway is that the Intel chip is consistently faster in the specific workloads tested, but the overall performance envelope is remarkably similar when averaged across a broader benchmark suite.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-6350HQ is the clear winner in every benchmark category represented in the data, making it the superior choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or single-threaded responsiveness. Its 15.9% advantage in multi-core tests like Cinebench R23 (3616 vs. 3040) means it will handle video encoding, 3D rendering, and other multi-threaded productivity tasks with noticeably better efficiency. The single-core wins in Cinebench R20 (214 vs. 180) and R23 (510 vs. 429) also indicate snappier day-to-day application performance, where individual thread speed matters more than raw core count.

The AMD PRO A10-8770, despite losing all benchmarks, still has a role in systems where its platform characteristics are valued. It uses the AMD Socket AM4, which is a desktop socket that allows for easier upgrading and maintenance compared to Intel's BGA 1440, which is soldered to the motherboard. The AMD chip also has a lower TDP of 65 watts versus Intel's 45 watts, but this is a power consumption figure rather than a performance advantage. For users who prioritize a desktop socket with potential upgrade paths over raw benchmark scores, the AMD part remains viable, though the data shows it will be slower in every tested workload.

The Intel Core i5-6350HQ's integrated Iris Pro 580 graphics represent a significant feature for systems without a discrete GPU, whereas the AMD PRO A10-8770's Radeon R7 is also integrated but does not match the Intel graphics tier in the data provided. In a mobile or compact desktop context where dedicated graphics are unavailable, the Intel chip's superior iGPU performance, combined with its CPU benchmark wins, makes it the more capable all-rounder. However, the AMD part's desktop socket and active production status (versus Intel's end-of-life status) mean it may be easier to source for new builds, albeit with the understanding that it will lag in compute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: Both the AMD PRO A10-8770 and the Intel Core i5-6350HQ have an identical average benchmark score of 1046, placing them both at the 29th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core i5-6350HQ in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-6350HQ scores 3616 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD PRO A10-8770 scores 3040, representing a -15.9% delta in favor of the Intel chip.

Q: Does the AMD PRO A10-8770 win any benchmark tests?

A: No, the head-to-head data shows zero wins for the AMD PRO A10-8770, with the Intel Core i5-6350HQ winning all 5 tests by a consistent -15.9% margin.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds for each processor?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz.

Q: Which processor uses a desktop socket?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 uses AMD Socket AM4, which is a desktop socket, whereas the Intel Core i5-6350HQ uses Intel BGA 1440, which is a mobile soldered socket.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-6350HQ still in production?

A: No, the Intel Core i5-6350HQ is marked as end-of-life, while the AMD PRO A10-8770 is listed as active in production.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The AMD PRO A10-8770 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ runs at a significantly lower 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The AMD chip has a TDP of 65 watts, compared to Intel's 45 watts, despite the Intel part being faster in benchmarks. The socket types are completely different: the AMD PRO A10-8770 uses AMD Socket AM4 for desktop builds, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ uses Intel BGA 1440, a mobile soldered interface.

Memory support also diverges: the AMD PRO A10-8770 supports DDR4, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Memory bandwidth figures differ as well, with AMD rated at 38.4 GB/s and Intel at 34.1 GB/s, though this does not translate into a performance advantage for AMD in the benchmark data. The integrated graphics differ, with AMD featuring Radeon R7 and Intel featuring Iris Pro 580. The production status is another differentiator: AMD is active, while Intel is end-of-life. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $306, and its release date is January 23, 2016, while the AMD part has no release date or MSRP listed. The part numbers are AD877BAGM44AB for AMD and SR2QZ for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these processors is substantial, explaining the consistent performance gap. The AMD PRO A10-8770 is built on the Excavator architecture with the Carrizo codename, manufactured on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel Core i5-6350HQ uses the Skylake architecture with the Skylake-H codename, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process with 2,300 million transistors on a 171 mm² die. The smaller, denser Intel process node is a major factor in its efficiency advantage, despite the AMD chip having more transistors.

Cache configurations are notably different. The AMD PRO A10-8770 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The Intel Core i5-6350HQ has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. This L3 cache presence is critical for multi-threaded workloads, allowing the Intel chip to share data more efficiently between cores, which directly contributes to its 15.9% lead in Cinebench multi-core tests. The AMD chip's lack of L3 cache forces it to rely on slower memory accesses, even though its dual-channel memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s exceeds Intel's 34.1 GB/s.

Both processors have 4 cores and 4 threads, with no hyper-threading or SMT, and both are locked (multiplier unlocked is false for both). They both support PCIe Gen 3, though the Intel part specifies 16 lanes for CPU only. The AMD part is a desktop segment product, while the Intel part is a mobile segment product, which explains the BGA socket and the lower TDP. The Intel chip's Skylake architecture also benefits from a more modern instruction set and microarchitecture design compared to AMD's older Excavator, which is reflected in the consistent -15.9% benchmark deltas across all tests. The 14 nm process node for Intel provides a significant transistor density advantage, allowing for more complex logic in a smaller area, while the 28 nm AMD process is a generation behind in manufacturing technology.