AMD PRO A10-9700 vs Intel Core i3-4160T Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-9700 and Intel Core i3-4160T are two desktop processors that land in the same performance tier, with average benchmark scores of 1045 and 1043 respectively. Both sit at the 29th percentile of all CPUs, yet their underlying designs and benchmark results tell distinctly different stories. The AMD part, built on the Excavator architecture with four physical cores, consistently outpaces the Intel dual-core with Hyper-Threading in every head-to-head test recorded, while the Intel chip counters with a lower 35W TDP and a more recent production process at the time of its release.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD PRO A10-9700 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all five tests with margins that hover in a narrow band. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 306 against the Intel’s 265, a 15.5% advantage. That gap remains remarkably consistent across the Cinebench suite: R20 multi-core shows 1275 versus 1106 (15.3% lead), and R23 multi-core shows 3037 versus 2635 (15.3% lead). The single-core results mirror the multi-core pattern, with the AMD chip ahead by 14.7% in R20 (179 vs 156) and 15.1% in R23 (428 vs 372).

These numbers are not trivial. A 15% swing in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads suggests the AMD processor’s architecture delivers a balanced advantage, not one that favors only heavily threaded tasks. The Intel i3-4160T, despite having two fewer physical cores, does not close the gap in any test — the four-thread count is identical, but the AMD’s four full cores pull ahead consistently. The data shows no scenario in the provided benchmarks where the Intel chip wins, and the narrowest margin (14.7% in R20 single-core) is still a decisive lead.

For context, both CPUs are near-perfect statistical twins in the broader database. The AMD’s nearest rival, the Intel Pentium Gold G5620, matches its average score of 1045 with a 0% delta, while the Intel i3-4160T’s closest competitor is the AMD PRO A10-9700 itself, with a delta of -0.2%. This means the head-to-head results represent a genuine intra-tier contest: the two chips are peers in aggregate performance, yet the AMD wins every individual workload tested.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two parts is wide. The AMD PRO A10-9700 uses the Excavator architecture on the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. It packs four cores and four threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The cache layout is a 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, with no L3 cache at all. It supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, and uses PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics is a Radeon R7 part.

The Intel Core i3-4160T, by contrast, uses the Haswell architecture, built on Intel’s 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. It has two cores with four threads via Hyper-Threading, a base clock of 3.10 GHz, and no boost clock. The cache hierarchy is different: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus a shared 3 MB L3 — a feature the AMD chip lacks entirely. It supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus (no bandwidth figure is listed), and uses PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count specified. The integrated graphics is Intel HD 4400.

The process node difference — 28 nm versus 22 nm — is significant, but the AMD part’s higher transistor count (3,100 million versus 1,400 million) and larger die (250 mm² versus 177 mm²) indicate a more complex design. The TDP gap is stark: the Intel chip draws 35W, while the AMD chip is rated at 65W. This is a direct consequence of the older, denser process on the AMD side. The socket also differs completely: AMD Socket AM4 versus Intel Socket 1150.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A10-9700 is the clear winner in raw compute performance as measured by the Cinebench suite. Every benchmark — R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core — goes to the AMD part, with margins between 14.7% and 15.5%. For users running rendering workloads, content creation tasks, or any application that scales with Cinebench-style performance, the AMD chip is the stronger choice. Its four physical cores provide a solid foundation for multi-threaded tasks, and its single-core advantage means even lightly threaded applications benefit.

The Intel Core i3-4160T wins in the efficiency domain. Its 35W TDP is less than half of the AMD’s 65W rating, making it a more suitable option for compact desktops, low-power builds, or systems where thermal output is a constraint. The 22 nm process and smaller die (177 mm²) suggest a more power-frugal design, though the benchmark data does not include any power or thermal measurements. The Intel chip also offers a shared 3 MB L3 cache, which can help in scenarios where cache-sensitive workloads are present, though no benchmark data is provided to quantify this advantage.

In terms of platform flexibility, the AMD chip uses DDR4 memory and a modern AM4 socket, while the Intel chip is tied to DDR3 and the older Socket 1150. For someone building a new system today, the AMD platform offers a more future-proof memory standard, even if the CPU itself does not outperform its rival by a wide margin. The Intel chip’s integrated HD 4400 graphics are present, but the AMD’s Radeon R7 likely offers better iGPU performance, though no benchmark figures are given to confirm this.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 has an average benchmark score of 1045, while the Intel Core i3-4160T scores 1043. The difference is less than 0.2%.

Q: How much faster is the AMD PRO A10-9700 in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD scores 3037 versus the Intel’s 2635, a 15.3% lead in the AMD’s favor.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-4160T have any benchmark wins over the AMD part?

A: No. In the five head-to-head tests provided (Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core), the AMD PRO A10-9700 wins all five with deltas ranging from 14.7% to 15.5%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160T is rated at 35W, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 is rated at 65W. The Intel chip consumes significantly less power.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 has four physical cores and four threads, while the Intel Core i3-4160T has two physical cores and four threads (via Hyper-Threading).

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory type?

A: No. The AMD PRO A10-9700 supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core i3-4160T supports DDR3 memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD PRO A10-9700 | Intel Core i3-4160T |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | None |

| TDP | 65W | 35W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Haswell |

| Codename | Bristol Ridge | Haswell |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 177 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | None | 3 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

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

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 | Intel HD 4400 |