AMD PRO A10-8850B vs Intel Core i7-4600M Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-8850B and Intel Core i7-4600M represent two fundamentally different approaches to computing from the same era, yet the benchmark data shows a clear and consistent performance hierarchy. The AMD desktop part wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 16.7% to 17.4%. Despite the Intel chip being a mobile part with a lower TDP, the data reveals that the AMD PRO A10-8850B holds a decisive performance edge in every measured workload, making it the stronger choice for raw compute, while the Intel part's appeal rests entirely on its power efficiency and platform context.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD PRO A10-8850B is the faster processor in every single test recorded. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons, including multi-core and single-core workloads, with consistent margins around 17%. The data shows the AMD chip achieving an average benchmark score of 1098, placing it at the 31st percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core i7-4600M scores 1093, sitting at the 30th percentile. These near-identical average scores, however, mask the fact that the AMD part wins every direct comparison.

The Intel Core i7-4600M's case rests entirely on its 37W TDP versus the AMD's 95W TDP. For a mobile platform, that efficiency is critical — the Intel chip is designed for laptops where power draw and heat dissipation are paramount. The data shows the Intel part has a launch MSRP of $346, a figure that reflects its premium mobile positioning. For desktop users who prioritize compute performance and have adequate cooling, the AMD PRO A10-8850B is the clear winner. For mobile users who need a capable processor that sips power, the Intel part is the only viable option given its socket and form factor.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on core count: the AMD PRO A10-8850B has 4 physical cores with 4 threads, while the Intel Core i7-4600M has 2 physical cores but 4 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading. Clock speeds favor AMD, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost of 4.10 GHz, compared to Intel's 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The TDP difference is stark: 95W for AMD versus 37W for Intel, reflecting the desktop versus mobile design goals.

Socket compatibility separates them completely — AMD uses Socket FM2+, while Intel uses Socket G3. The AMD part is built on a 28 nm process with a die size of 245 mm² and 2,411 million transistors, whereas the Intel chip uses a 22 nm process, 131 mm² die, and 960 million transistors. Memory bandwidth also differs: AMD supports 34.1 GB/s versus Intel's 25.6 GB/s, though both use dual-channel DDR3. The integrated graphics are distinct: Radeon R7 on the AMD side versus Intel HD 4600 on the Intel side. Release dates are about two years apart, with AMD launching in September 2015 and Intel in August 2013.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. AMD's Steamroller architecture, codenamed Godaveri, relies on four full cores running at high clocks to deliver performance. This is a 28 nm design from GlobalFoundries, using a traditional monolithic die with 2,411 million transistors across 245 mm². The cache hierarchy is straightforward: 256 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The lack of L3 is notable, as it means the processor relies on its high clock speeds and dual-channel memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s to feed the cores.

Intel's Haswell architecture, by contrast, is a 22 nm design from Intel's own fabs, packing 960 million transistors into a 131 mm² die. The cache layout is per-core for L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core), but adds a 4 MB shared L3 cache — a significant advantage for workloads that benefit from shared data. The Intel part achieves its 4 threads through Hyper-Threading on just 2 physical cores, a fundamentally different approach than AMD's 4 native cores. The Intel chip's 37W TDP is a direct result of this smaller, more efficient design, and its 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth reflects its mobile power envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the consistency of AMD's victory across all tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD PRO A10-8850B scores 321 versus Intel's 275, a 16.7% advantage. The same 16.7% margin appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with scores of 1339 versus 1147. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 3189 versus 2732, again a 16.7% gap. These identical percentages across different versions of the same benchmark suggest a stable performance ratio that scales with workload.

Single-core results tell a similar story. Cinebench R20 single-core gives AMD a 17.4% lead (189 versus 161), while R23 single-core shows a 16.9% advantage (450 versus 385). This is particularly telling because single-core performance often favors higher-clocked parts, and the AMD chip's 4.10 GHz boost clock versus Intel's 3.60 GHz explains the edge. The Intel part has no wins recorded in the head-to-head data, a clean sweep for AMD.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 1098 versus 1093 — but this masks the head-to-head reality. The AMD chip's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 at 1098 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i7-2710QE at 1096 (0.1% delta). The Intel i7-4600M's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-4610M at 1094 (-0.1%) and the Intel Core i7-10510Y at 1092 (0.1%). These placements show both chips are in the same performance tier overall, but the direct comparisons reveal AMD's superiority in Cinebench workloads.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD PRO A10-8850B always faster than the Intel Core i7-4600M?

A: Yes, in the recorded benchmarks. The AMD chip wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins from 16.7% to 17.4%. The Intel part has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: Why does the Intel chip have 4 threads with only 2 cores?

A: The Intel Core i7-4600M uses Hyper-Threading, which allows each physical core to handle two threads simultaneously. This gives it 2 cores and 4 threads, whereas the AMD PRO A10-8850B has 4 native cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The Intel Core i7-4600M has a TDP of 37W, significantly lower than the AMD's 95W. This makes the Intel part far more suitable for mobile devices where battery life and cooling are critical.

Q: Can the AMD processor be used in a laptop?

A: The data shows the AMD PRO A10-8850B is a desktop part using Socket FM2+, while the Intel chip is a mobile part using Socket G3. The AMD's 95W TDP and desktop socket make it unsuitable for laptops.

Q: Do the chips support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the AMD PRO A10-8850B and the Intel Core i7-4600M have ECC memory support set to false in the specifications.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking of each chip?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8850B sits at the 31st percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core i7-4600M is at the 30th percentile. This places them in the same overall performance tier despite the AMD's head-to-head wins.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A10-8850B wins every recorded benchmark, making it the superior choice for pure compute performance. Its 16.7% to 17.4% margins across multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests indicate that it handles both heavily threaded workloads and lightly threaded tasks with equal competence. The 4 physical cores provide an advantage in multi-threaded rendering, while the high 4.10 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance. For desktop users who need maximum throughput in applications like video rendering, 3D modeling, or compilation, the AMD part is the data-backed choice. Its 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth also suggests better memory throughput in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The Intel Core i7-4600M's wins are not in performance but in efficiency and platform fit. Its 37W TDP is less than half of the AMD's 95W, making it the only option for mobile form factors. The 22 nm Haswell architecture with 4 MB of shared L3 cache provides a more sophisticated cache hierarchy, which could benefit certain workloads despite the lower clock speeds. The Intel chip's launch MSRP of $346 reflects its premium mobile positioning. For users who need a processor in a laptop, the Intel part is the only viable choice given its Socket G3 and mobile design. The data shows it performs within 17% of the AMD chip while using dramatically less power — a trade-off that makes sense for portable devices but not for desktop systems where power draw is less constrained.

The verdict from the data is clear: performance favors AMD by a consistent margin, but efficiency and mobility favor Intel. Each processor wins in its intended environment, and the benchmark results simply confirm that the AMD desktop part is faster while the Intel mobile part is more power-conscious.