AMD PRO A10-8770E vs Intel Core i5-5350U Comparison

The Intel Core i5-5350U and AMD PRO A10-8770E are two legacy processors that occupy the same overall performance percentile but achieve it through very different means. The benchmark data shows a classic split: AMD wins the Cinebench suite across the board, while Intel dominates Geekbench with substantial margins. Both chips land at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (903 vs 895), yet the pattern of wins tells a more nuanced story about their respective strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD PRO A10-8770E takes the Cinebench crown in every single test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 258 against Intel's 221, a 14.3% advantage. That pattern repeats almost exactly in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1075 vs 923, a 14.1% gap) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (2560 vs 2198, also 14.1%). Even in single-core Cinebench tests, AMD holds a similar edge: 151 vs 130 in R20 single-core (13.9% ahead) and 361 vs 310 in R23 single-core (14.1% ahead). This consistency across three different Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental architectural advantage in how the AMD chip handles these rendering workloads.

The Intel Core i5-5350U fights back decisively in Geekbench. In Geekbench multi-core, Intel scores 1671 against AMD's 1291, a 29.4% lead for Intel. The single-core Geekbench result is even more lopsided: 868 vs 572, giving Intel a 51.7% advantage. These are not marginal differences; Intel is roughly half again as fast in Geekbench single-core. The contrast could hardly be starker — AMD wins all five Cinebench tests, Intel wins both Geekbench tests, and the point spreads are enormous in both directions.

Looking at the nearest rivals places these results in context. The Intel i5-5350U’s average score of 903 puts it exactly level with the Intel Core i7-940, and 0.1% ahead of the Core i5-4258U. The AMD PRO A10-8770E’s 895 average matches the Core i5-5300U and Pentium G4600T exactly, and sits 0.2% behind the Ryzen 3 3200U. Both chips are essentially peer performers in aggregate, yet the head-to-head deltas show they arrive at similar averages via completely different workload profiles.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head tests, taking every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 result. The Intel Core i5-5350U wins the remaining 2 Geekbench tests.

Q: How big is the AMD lead in Cinebench?

A: AMD leads by 14.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 14.1% in R20 multi-core, 14.1% in R23 multi-core, 13.9% in R20 single-core, and 14.1% in R23 single-core.

Q: How large is the Intel lead in Geekbench?

A: Intel leads by 29.4% in Geekbench multi-core and 51.7% in Geekbench single-core.

Q: Do both processors have the same overall performance ranking?

A: Yes, both sit at the 24th percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are also close: 903 for Intel and 895 for AMD.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core i5-5350U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD PRO A10-8770E has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The Intel Core i5-5350U has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A10-8770E is the clear choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. Its victory in all five Cinebench tests — including both single-core and multi-core variants — indicates that applications built around the same rendering engine as Cinebench will favor AMD. The 14% margin across the board is substantial enough to make a real difference in render times. If your workflow involves 3D modeling, animation, or any software that leverages Cinebench-like code paths, the AMD chip is the stronger option.

The Intel Core i5-5350U wins decisively in Geekbench, particularly in single-core performance where it leads by over 50%. Geekbench is a broad system-level benchmark that exercises a wider range of everyday tasks, from image processing to encryption to database operations. The Intel chip’s 29.4% multi-core and 51.7% single-core leads suggest it will feel snappier in general desktop responsiveness, web browsing, and productivity applications that rely on single-threaded bursts of activity. For users prioritizing day-to-day feel over sustained rendering throughput, Intel is the better pick.

The split is clean and unambiguous. AMD wins rendering, Intel wins general compute. There is no overlap in the data — no test where the two chips trade places — which makes the use-case decision straightforward. Choose AMD for content creation, choose Intel for general-purpose desktop work.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD PRO A10-8770E has 4 cores versus Intel’s 2, though both have 4 threads. AMD’s base clock is 2.80 GHz against Intel’s 1.80 GHz, and AMD boosts to 3.50 GHz against Intel’s 2.90 GHz. The thermal design power tells a different story: Intel is rated at 15W TDP, while AMD consumes 35W — more than double the power envelope.

The sockets are entirely incompatible: Intel uses BGA 1168, AMD uses Socket AM4. Memory support differs, with Intel running DDR3 and AMD running DDR4, both dual-channel. AMD has a higher memory bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s versus Intel’s 29.9 GB/s. PCIe support also diverges: Intel offers Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while AMD provides Gen 3 without a lane count specified.

The market segments are opposite — Intel is a mobile chip, AMD is a desktop chip. Intel is end-of-life, while AMD remains in active production. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $315; no launch MSRP is listed for AMD. Intel’s part number is SR268, AMD’s is AD877BAHM44AB. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from completely different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-5350U is built on Broadwell-U, a 14 nm architecture produced by Intel with 1,900 million transistors on a 133 mm² die. It uses a per-core cache layout: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD PRO A10-8770E uses the Excavator architecture under the Carrizo codename, built on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die — significantly larger and more power-hungry than the Intel chip. AMD’s cache structure is different: 320 KB of L1 total and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all.

The integrated graphics also differ. Intel pairs the CPU with HD 6000 graphics, while AMD includes Radeon R7 graphics. The node advantage goes to Intel (14 nm vs 28 nm), and the transistor count favors AMD (3,100 million vs 1,900 million), but the AMD chip needs that extra silicon to compensate for its older, less efficient architecture.

The Verdict

The data does not declare a single winner — it declares two winners for two different jobs. If your primary workload is Cinebench-style rendering, the AMD PRO A10-8770E is the pick. It wins every Cinebench test by roughly 14%, and its 4 physical cores at higher clock speeds deliver consistent rendering performance. The AMD chip also brings DDR4 support, higher memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 3, all of which are modern platform advantages.

If your priority is general computing performance as measured by Geekbench, the Intel Core i5-5350U is the better choice. Its 29.4% multi-core and 51.7% single-core leads in Geekbench indicate superior responsiveness in everyday applications. The 15W TDP also makes it dramatically more power-efficient, suitable for mobile designs where battery life and thermals matter.

There is one more practical consideration: platform longevity. AMD’s chip is active, on Socket AM4, and supports DDR4 — a modern foundation. Intel’s chip is end-of-life, soldered to BGA 1168, and limited to DDR3. For a new build, the AMD path offers a more current platform. For an existing mobile system or a low-power embedded use case, the Intel chip’s efficiency is compelling. Both chips sit at the same 24th percentile, so neither is a performance outlier — they are simply tuned for different workloads. Match the chip to the task, and you will not be disappointed.