AMD PRO A10-8770E vs Intel Core i3-10110Y Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i3-10110Y across every shared benchmark. The Intel part wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 2.7% to 3.3%. None of these margins are dramatic, but the consistency is notable: the Intel chip is ahead in both multi-core and single-core workloads, and the advantage does not evaporate under heavier thread loads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Core i3-10110Y scores 265 against 258 for the AMD PRO A10-8770E, a 2.7% lead. The gap widens slightly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where Intel posts 1108 versus 1075, a 3.1% advantage. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R23 multi-core: 2640 for Intel, 2560 for AMD, again 3.1% ahead. The single-core results follow suit. In Cinebench R20 single-core, Intel scores 156 versus 151, a 3.3% edge, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 372 versus 361, a 3% lead.

What is noteworthy is that the AMD part has four physical cores against only two for the Intel chip, yet the Intel processor still manages to outrun it in multi-threaded tests. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result is the clearest demonstration: a 3.1% win for a dual-core part over a quad-core part. This indicates that the Intel architecture is extracting significantly more work per clock, and per thread, than the Excavator-based AMD design. The AMD chip does have additional benchmarks recorded in the database, specifically Geekbench multi-core and single-core results, but there are no corresponding Geekbench scores for the Intel part, so those cannot be compared directly. In the tests where both are measured, the Intel Core i3-10110Y is uniformly faster.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras and market positions. The Intel Core i3-10110Y is built on Comet Lake, a 14 nm process from Intel, and uses the Comet Lake-Y codename. It is a mobile segment part with 2 cores and 4 threads, base clock of 1000.00 MHz, and boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Its TDP is 9 watts, which places it firmly in the ultra-low-power mobile category. The AMD PRO A10-8770E, by contrast, is a desktop part built on the Excavator architecture with the Carrizo codename, using a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, base clock of 2.80 GHz, boost clock of 3.50 GHz, and a TDP of 35 watts.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm. The Intel part is manufactured at roughly half the feature size of the AMD chip, which helps explain how it achieves competitive or better performance while consuming only 9 watts against the AMD part's 35 watts. The transistor count also differs sharply. The AMD PRO A10-8770E contains 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, so a direct comparison cannot be made, but the architectural lineage is clear.

Cache configurations are also distinct. The Intel Core i3-10110Y has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD PRO A10-8770E has 320 KB of total L1 cache and 2 MB of total L2 cache, with no L3 cache recorded. The AMD chip relies on its larger L1 and L2 pools, while the Intel design adds a shared L3 tier. That L3 cache likely helps the Intel part in workloads with data reuse across threads, even with fewer physical cores.

Memory support differs as well. The Intel chip supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD part supports DDR4 with dual-channel configuration and a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD chip also lists PCIe Gen 3 support, while the Intel part has no PCIe information recorded. The integrated graphics differ: Intel uses UHD Graphics, AMD uses Radeon R7. Neither part supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part has a recorded part number, AD877BAHM44AB, while the Intel part does not.

The socket situation is entirely different: Intel uses BGA 1440, meaning the chip is soldered to the board, while AMD uses Socket AM4, a socketed desktop platform. The AMD part is a desktop chip with a 35 watt TDP and a 2.80 GHz base clock, which is a much higher sustained frequency than the Intel's 1000.00 MHz base, but the Intel chip has a 4.00 GHz boost clock that it can reach when thermals allow. The database does not record sustained clock behavior, so the practical boost behavior cannot be quantified here, but the peak figures are clear.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i3-10110Y wins every shared multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 265 against 258, in R20 multi-core 1108 against 1075, and in R23 multi-core 2640 against 2560. The deltas are 2.7%, 3.1%, and 3.1% respectively.

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

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the AMD part records 0 wins across the five shared tests. The Intel Core i3-10110Y wins all 5.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare?

A: The Intel chip leads in both recorded single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, Intel scores 156 versus 151, a 3.3% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 372 versus 361, a 3% lead.

Q: Why does the quad-core AMD chip lose to the dual-core Intel chip?

A: The benchmark results indicate that the Intel Comet Lake architecture delivers more performance per thread than the AMD Excavator design. Despite having half the physical cores, the Intel part scores higher in all multi-threaded Cinebench tests, which suggests higher per-core efficiency and effective use of its 4 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The Intel Core i3-10110Y has a TDP of 9 watts, while the AMD PRO A10-8770E has a TDP of 35 watts. The Intel part achieves its benchmark lead at a dramatically lower power envelope.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Intel Core i3-10110Y and the AMD PRO A10-8770E have ECC memory support recorded as false.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core i3-10110Y is the faster processor in every benchmark where both are measured. It wins all five head-to-head tests, with margins between 2.7% and 3.3%. It does so with a 9 watt TDP, a 14 nm process, and only 2 cores. The AMD PRO A10-8770E, despite having 4 cores, a 35 watt TDP, and a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz, cannot match the Intel part in any recorded Cinebench test.

The AMD processor does have advantages in platform and memory support. It uses Socket AM4, which is a socketed desktop platform, and it supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. It also has PCIe Gen 3 support. The Intel part is a BGA 1440 mobile chip with DDR3 support. For a desktop user who values a replaceable CPU and newer memory standards, the AMD platform offers those features. But for raw compute performance in the shared benchmarks, the Intel Core i3-10110Y is the clear winner.

The average benchmark scores reflect the same picture. The Intel chip has an average benchmark score of 908, which places it in the 24th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD chip has an average benchmark score of 895, also in the 24th percentile. The Intel part sits alongside the Intel Core i3-4330T and AMD Ryzen 3 3250U, both with average scores of 908, and it edges out the AMD PRO A12-9800E by 0.3%. The AMD PRO A10-8770E sits alongside the Intel Core i5-5300U and Intel Pentium G4600T, both at 895, and it edges out the AMD Ryzen 3 3200U by 0.2%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-10110Y | AMD PRO A10-8770E |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 1000.00 MHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 9 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Excavator |

| Codename | Comet Lake-Y | Carrizo |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 250 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | None recorded |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Not recorded | Dual-channel |

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

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics | Radeon R7 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Part Number | Not recorded | AD877BAHM44AB |

| Average Benchmark Score | 908 | 895 |

| Percentile | 24 | 24 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-10110Y wins on raw compute performance. It is ahead in all five shared benchmarks, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The margins are modest but consistent, ranging from 2.7% to 3.3%. It also wins on power efficiency, with a 9 watt TDP against 35 watts for the AMD part, and on process technology, with a 14 nm node against 28 nm. It has a shared L3 cache of 4 MB, which the AMD part lacks entirely.

The AMD PRO A10-8770E wins on platform flexibility and memory support. It uses Socket AM4, which is a socketed desktop platform, allowing the processor to be replaced without replacing the motherboard. It supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part supports DDR3. It also has PCIe Gen 3 support recorded. It has more physical cores, 4 against 2, and a higher base clock, 2.80 GHz against 1000.00 MHz, although the Intel part's 4.00 GHz boost clock exceeds the AMD's 3.50 GHz boost. The AMD chip also has a higher recorded transistor count of 3,100 million on a 250 mm² die.

For users who prioritize compute speed in Cinebench-style workloads, the Intel Core i3-10110Y is the choice. For users who need a desktop platform with DDR4 memory, a replaceable CPU socket, and PCIe Gen 3, the AMD PRO A10-8770E offers those capabilities. The benchmark data does not record any workload where the AMD part wins, so the decision rests on platform features rather than measured performance in the shared tests.