AMD PRO A10-8770E vs Intel Core i3-1000NG4 Comparison

AMD PRO A10-8770E vs Intel Core i3-1000NG4: The database comparison shows two very different processors with nearly identical average benchmark scores. The AMD PRO A10-8770E, a 35-watt desktop part, and the Intel Core i3-1000NG4, a 9-watt mobile chip, land within 1.6% of each other in overall average score, with the AMD part at 895 and the Intel part at 881. The Intel chip wins every head-to-head benchmark in the recorded data, despite having half the physical cores. The AMD part counters with a higher boost clock, a larger cache pool, and a desktop platform that includes a separate socket and PCIe Gen 3 support. The data shows a clear split: the Intel part dominates compute workloads, while the AMD part offers a more conventional desktop feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins every single benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. In multi-core workloads, the Intel chip posts a 14.3% advantage in both Cinebench R15 and R20, and a 14.4% edge in Cinebench R23. The single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Intel part leading by 14.7% in Cinebench R20 single-core and 14.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core. This is a clean sweep across all five recorded tests, giving the Intel part a 5-0 win record over the AMD processor.

The AMD PRO A10-8770E does not win a single head-to-head benchmark, but it does hold advantages in areas not covered by the compute tests. The AMD part has four physical cores compared to the Intel chip's two, and it offers a higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz on the Intel side. The AMD processor also has a larger L2 cache at 2 MB total, while the Intel part uses a smaller per-core L2 design with a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The AMD chip is built for a desktop socket, which means it can be paired with standard AM4 motherboards, while the Intel part is soldered to a BGA 1044 package, limiting it to mobile or embedded designs.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The AMD part sits at the 24th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel part sits at the 23rd percentile. This means both processors are effectively in the same performance tier, with the AMD part holding a razor-thin 1 percentile advantage in overall standing despite losing every compute test. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the AMD part averages 895 across its recorded tests, while the Intel part averages 881, a difference of just 1.6%.

Architecture Differences

The AMD PRO A10-8770E uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Carrizo, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This is an older, larger design with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 uses the Ice Lake architecture, codenamed Ice Lake-Y, built on a 10 nm process at Intel with a 123 mm² die. The process node difference is significant: the Intel chip uses a much denser manufacturing process, which explains how it can deliver higher performance while consuming only 9 watts of TDP compared to the AMD part's 35 watts.

The core configurations differ sharply. The AMD part has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Intel part has 2 cores and 4 threads, using hyper-threading to double its thread count. This means the AMD part has more physical execution units, but the Intel part can process more threads per core. The cache layouts reflect this difference. The AMD part has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Intel chip's L3 cache is a significant advantage for workloads that benefit from shared data access.

Memory support is similar on both sides: both use DDR4 with dual-channel memory buses. The AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Intel part has no bandwidth figure recorded in the database. Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both use PCIe Gen 3, though the AMD part is on the AM4 socket platform while the Intel part uses BGA 1044.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part includes Radeon R7 graphics, while the Intel part includes Iris Plus with 48 execution units. The database does not record graphics benchmark scores for either part, so the comparison here is qualitative. The AMD part is marked as active production status, while the Intel part is end-of-life, with a release date of March 17, 2020.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the Intel part scoring 301 against the AMD part's 258, a 14.3% deficit for the AMD chip. This is a clear win for the Intel part, which uses fewer physical cores but compensates with a higher per-core efficiency. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test repeats the pattern: Intel scores 1255, AMD scores 1075, again a 14.3% gap. The R23 multi-core test shows Intel at 2989 versus AMD at 2560, a 14.4% difference. Across all three multi-core tests, the Intel part maintains a consistent lead of roughly 14%, indicating that its architectural efficiency is not a fluke but a sustained advantage.

The single-core results are equally one-sided. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel part scores 177 versus the AMD part's 151, a 14.7% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel part scores 422 versus 361, a 14.5% lead. These single-core wins are notable because the AMD part has a higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz compared to the Intel part's 3.20 GHz. Despite clocking lower, the Intel part's Ice Lake architecture delivers superior instructions per clock, which more than compensates for the clock speed disadvantage.

The Geekbench results are only recorded for the AMD part, with a multi-core score of 1291 and a single-core score of 572. The Intel part has no Geekbench entries in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible. However, the Cinebench results cover both parts comprehensively, and the pattern is consistent: the Intel part wins every test, with margins ranging from 14.3% to 14.7%. These margins are nearly identical across different Cinebench versions, suggesting that the performance difference is structural rather than workload-dependent.

The nearest rival data places both parts in similar company. The AMD part's closest rivals include the Intel Core i5-5300U and Intel Pentium G4600T, both with an average score of 895 and a 0% delta, as well as the AMD Ryzen 3 3200U at 893 and the Intel Core i3-6100 at 888. The Intel part's closest rivals include the AMD Phenom II X6 1035T and AMD Athlon Silver 7120U at 881, with the Intel Core i7-930 at 882 and the AMD PRO A12-8870E at 880. This places both parts in a crowded mid-range tier where small score differences separate many processors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for users who prioritize raw compute performance: the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins every recorded benchmark, and it does so with a 14% or better margin across all tests. Its 2-core, 4-thread design with a shared 4 MB L3 cache and 10 nm process node delivers superior single-thread and multi-thread performance compared to the AMD part's 4-core, 4-thread Excavator design on 28 nm. The Intel part also consumes only 9 watts of TDP, making it dramatically more power-efficient than the AMD part's 35 watts, though the database does not record direct power consumption measurements.

However, the AMD PRO A10-8770E is not without merit. It offers a desktop socket (AM4), which means it can be installed in a standard desktop motherboard, while the Intel part uses a soldered BGA 1044 package that is tied to mobile or embedded designs. The AMD part also has more physical cores, which could matter for workloads that scale with core count rather than per-core efficiency, though the recorded benchmarks do not show such an advantage. The AMD part's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz is a spec advantage, but the benchmark data shows that the Intel part's lower clock still wins.

For desktop builders, the AMD part is the only viable option of the two, since the Intel part is not socketed for desktop use. For mobile or embedded designs where power efficiency and performance per watt are critical, the Intel part is the clear choice based on the recorded data. The Intel part's end-of-life status is a consideration, but its benchmark performance remains competitive with the AMD part, which is still in active production. The final call depends on platform requirements: if the socket is flexible, the Intel part wins on performance; if an AM4 desktop socket is required, the AMD part is the only option.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins all multi-core benchmarks in the database. It scores 301 versus 258 in Cinebench R15, 1255 versus 1075 in Cinebench R20, and 2989 versus 2560 in Cinebench R23, a consistent 14.3% to 14.4% lead over the AMD PRO A10-8770E.

Q: Does the AMD part's higher boost clock help it win any tests?

A: No. The AMD PRO A10-8770E boosts to 3.50 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 boosts to 3.20 GHz, but the Intel part wins every single-core benchmark. In Cinebench R20 single-core, Intel scores 177 versus 151, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 422 versus 361.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 has 2 cores and 4 threads, using hyper-threading to match the thread count despite having fewer physical cores.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 has a TDP of 9 watts. The database records these as thermal design power figures, not direct power draw measurements.

Q: Can both processors use the same motherboard?

A: No. The AMD PRO A10-8770E uses the AMD Socket AM4, a desktop socket. The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 uses Intel BGA 1044, a soldered mobile package, so it cannot be installed on a standard desktop motherboard.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E has an average benchmark score of 895, while the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 has an average score of 881. This is a 1.6% difference, despite the Intel part winning every head-to-head test, because the AMD part has additional Geekbench scores that are not recorded for the Intel part.