AMD PRO A10-9700 vs Intel Core i3-4350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 has 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i3-4350 has 2 physical cores. Both processors support 4 threads total, meaning the Intel part uses Hyper-Threading to reach its thread count while the AMD part does not.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-4350 records an average benchmark score of 1058, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 records 1045. That places the Intel part 13 points higher in the database’s aggregated scoring, a margin of roughly 1.2% over the AMD chip.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Core i3-4350 supports DDR3 memory, also dual-channel, but no bandwidth figure is recorded for it.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-4350 and the AMD PRO A10-9700 sit at the 29th percentile when measured against all CPUs in the database. This indicates they occupy a similar overall performance tier despite different architectures and core counts.

Q: What is the release date gap between these two chips?

A: The Intel Core i3-4350 was released on 2014-04-30, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 was released on 2017-07-26. That is a gap of over three years, with the AMD part being the newer release.

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-4350 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz. The AMD part also has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, which the Intel part does not have.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-4350 is built on the Haswell architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The AMD PRO A10-9700 uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is significant: the Intel chip uses a smaller 22 nm node, while the AMD chip uses a larger 28 nm node.

Transistor counts and die sizes also differ substantially. The Intel Core i3-4350 contains 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD PRO A10-9700 contains 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. That means the AMD chip packs more than twice the transistor count, but it also spreads them over a much larger physical area, partly due to the older process node.

Cache layouts are completely different. The Intel part has a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and a per-core L2 cache of 256 KB, plus a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The AMD part has a single L1 cache figure of 320 KB and a 2 MB L2 cache, with no L3 cache listed at all. This is a classic architectural split: Intel dedicates die area to a shared L3 pool, while AMD’s Excavator design relies on larger L2 capacity and no L3.

Memory support diverges as well. The Intel Core i3-4350 supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 supports DDR4 memory. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, whereas no bandwidth figure is given for the Intel chip.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Intel part includes Intel HD 4600 graphics, while the AMD part includes Radeon R7 graphics. Both are desktop processors, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The platforms are incompatible. The Intel Core i3-4350 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 uses AMD Socket AM4. The PCIe implementation also differs: the Intel part lists Gen 3 without lane restrictions, while the AMD part lists Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Thermal design power differs as well. The Intel chip is rated at 54 W TDP, while the AMD chip is rated at 65 W TDP. The Intel part is the more power-efficient design despite being the older release.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark suite shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel Core i3-4350 across all five tested workloads. The AMD PRO A10-9700 does not win a single head-to-head test in the database.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Core i3-4350 scores 309 against 306 for the AMD PRO A10-9700. That is a 1% lead for Intel. The margin is small, but it is importantly the AMD part has twice the physical cores, yet still trails in a multi-threaded workload. This suggests that the Intel architecture’s per-core efficiency and its 4 MB of shared L3 cache help offset the core-count disadvantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap widens slightly. The Intel chip scores 1291, while the AMD chip scores 1275, a 1.3% difference. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core: Intel scores 3076, AMD scores 3037, again a 1.3% margin.

Single-core results follow the same trend. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel Core i3-4350 scores 182 versus 179 for the AMD part, a 1.7% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 434 versus 428 for AMD, a 1.4% margin. These single-core gaps are slightly larger in percentage terms than the multi-core gaps, which reinforces the conclusion that the Intel core design is more efficient per thread.

Across all five benchmarks, the Intel Core i3-4350 records 5 wins and the AMD PRO A10-9700 records 0 wins. The largest single margin is the 1.7% difference in Cinebench R20 single-core. The smallest margin is the 1% difference in Cinebench R15 multi-core. No test shows a double-digit percentage gap. This is not a lopsided matchup in absolute terms, but it is a clean sweep in direction.

The average benchmark scores from the broader database corroborate the head-to-head results. The Intel chip averages 1058 points, while the AMD chip averages 1045 points. Both sit at the 29th percentile of all CPUs, meaning the slight average difference does not move the needle in percentile terms.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the Intel Core i3-4350 and the AMD PRO A10-9700:

• Cores: Intel 2, AMD 4
• Threads: Both 4
• Base Clock: Intel 3.60 GHz, AMD 3.50 GHz
• Boost Clock: Intel none listed, AMD 3.80 GHz
• TDP: Intel 54 W, AMD 65 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1150, AMD Socket AM4
• Architecture: Intel Haswell, AMD Excavator
• Codename: Intel Haswell, AMD Bristol Ridge
• Generation: Intel Core i3 (Haswell), AMD A10 (Bristol Ridge)
• Process Node: Intel 22 nm, AMD 28 nm
• Foundry: Intel, GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: Intel 1,400 million, AMD 3,100 million
• Die Size: Intel 177 mm², AMD 250 mm²
• L1 Cache: Intel 64 KB per core, AMD 320 KB total
• L2 Cache: Intel 256 KB per core, AMD 2 MB total
• L3 Cache: Intel 4 MB shared, AMD none
• Memory Support: Intel DDR3, AMD DDR4
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel none recorded, AMD 38.4 GB/s
• PCIe: Intel Gen 3, AMD Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated Graphics: Intel HD 4600, AMD Radeon R7
• Production Status: Intel not listed, AMD Active
• Release Date: Intel 2014-04-30, AMD 2017-07-26
• Part Number: Intel none listed, AMD AD970BAGM44AB

Notable shared specifications: both are desktop processors, both have dual-channel memory buses, both lack ECC support, both lack an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-4350 wins every recorded benchmark in this comparison. It leads in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 1% to 1.7%. The practical takeaway is that for CPU-bound tasks like rendering, encoding, or general productivity, the Intel chip delivers slightly higher performance in every tested scenario. Its 4 MB of shared L3 cache and higher base clock of 3.60 GHz appear to compensate for its 2-core/4-thread configuration against AMD’s 4-core/4-thread design.

The Intel chip also wins on power efficiency. Its 54 W TDP is 11 W lower than the AMD part’s 65 W TDP, and it achieves this while posting higher benchmark scores. For systems where cooling or power draw is a concern, the Intel part is the more efficient choice.

The AMD PRO A10-9700 does not win any benchmark, but it does have structural advantages that could matter in specific contexts. It offers 4 physical cores, which may be preferable for workloads that scale with core count even if the recorded Cinebench results do not reflect an advantage. It also supports DDR4 memory, which is the newer memory standard, and it has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD part has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, which is higher than its base clock, giving it headroom under lighter loads. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics may also differ in real-world graphics capability, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database.

For a system integrator choosing between these two, the data points to Intel for raw compute performance. The AMD part’s advantages are platform-level (DDR4, AM4 socket, newer release date, active production status) rather than performance-level. The Intel part’s advantages are measured performance and lower TDP. Given that the AMD chip is the newer product by over three years, its inability to overtake the older Intel design in any recorded benchmark is notable. The 29th percentile placement for both chips confirms that neither is a high-performance part by modern standards, but within their shared tier, the Intel Core i3-4350 is the faster option according to the recorded data.