AMD PRO A10-9700E vs AMD Ryzen 3 3250U Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-9700E and AMD Ryzen 3 3250U represent two distinct approaches to low-power computing, separated by architecture generation and market segment. One is a 4-core desktop part built on a mature 28 nm process, while the other is a 2-core mobile chip on a newer 14 nm node. Benchmark results reveal a complex picture where the older desktop processor wins in one major workload, yet the mobile chip dominates overall, showcasing the significant impact of architectural efficiency over raw core counts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a clear split between older and newer benchmark suites. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD PRO A10-9700E delivers a decisive victory, scoring 2574 compared to the Ryzen 3 3250U's 2010. This represents a 28.1% advantage for the desktop part, which is substantial and directly attributable to its four physical cores versus the Ryzen's two. This result is particularly notable because Cinebench R23 is a demanding, heavily threaded workload that scales well with core count.

However, the Ryzen 3 3250U fights back aggressively in nearly every other test. The most striking disparity appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ryzen 3 3250U scores 776 versus the PRO A10-9700E's 363, a massive 53.2% lead. This is a generational gap in action: the Zen architecture's superior instruction-per-clock (IPC) efficiency utterly eclipses the older Excavator design in single-threaded performance, which is critical for everyday responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications.

The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells a different story, favoring the Ryzen 3 3250U with a score of 353 against the PRO A10-9700E's 259, a 26.6% difference. This is curious given the R23 multi-core result, but it highlights how workload characteristics and software optimizations can shift the balance. In Geekbench, the Ryzen 3 3250U maintains its lead, winning multi-core with 1467 points versus 1430 (a 2.5% margin) and single-core with 722 versus 577 (a 20.1% margin). The narrow multi-core Geekbench win suggests that while the Ryzen's two cores are far more efficient, the PRO A10-9700E's extra two physical cores help it stay competitive in this particular test.

The final tally is 4 wins for the Ryzen 3 3250U and 1 win for the PRO A10-9700E. This dominant margin in the head-to-head series underscores that despite the PRO A10-9700E's multi-core victory in R23, the Ryzen 3 3250U is the more capable processor overall, delivering superior performance in the majority of workloads tested.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two chips explains the benchmark results. The AMD PRO A10-9700E is built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, using a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is modest, featuring 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present. The chip is manufactured on a die size of 250 mm², containing 3,100 million transistors. It supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s and connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. It is a desktop part with a 35 W TDP, using the AMD Socket AM4.

In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U is a mobile processor from the 3000 series, built on the Zen architecture with the codename Dali. It is fabricated on a more advanced 14 nm process and features only 2 cores but 4 threads, thanks to simultaneous multithreading (SMT). Its base clock is 2.60 GHz, boosting up to 3.50 GHz. The cache layout is quite different, with 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus a shared 4 MB of L3 cache. This L3 cache is a critical addition that the PRO A10-9700E lacks entirely, providing a significant performance boost for data reuse. The Ryzen 3 3250U has a smaller die size of 148 mm² but packs more transistors, at 3,500 million, reflecting the denser 14 nm process. It also supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with the same 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3, but its TDP is drastically lower at 15 W, and it uses the AMD Socket FP5 for mobile platforms.

The core count difference is the most obvious spec-level divergence, but the architectural improvements in Zen are far more consequential. The move from 28 nm Excavator to 14 nm Zen brought a complete redesign of the core, leading to the substantial IPC gains observed in single-core benchmarks. The presence of L3 cache in the Ryzen 3 3250U also helps mitigate the latency of memory access, further boosting its efficiency in both single and multi-threaded tasks. The lower TDP of the Ryzen 3 3250U is a direct result of the more efficient process and architecture, making it suitable for laptops and other power-constrained devices.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A10-9700E's single victory in Cinebench R23 multi-core suggests a specific use case: heavily threaded workloads that are optimized for multiple physical cores and can saturate all four available threads. This could be relevant for software rendering, video encoding, or scientific computing tasks that are designed to scale across cores. In such scenarios, the PRO A10-9700E's 28.1% lead over the Ryzen 3 3250U would translate to tangible time savings. For a desktop system where power consumption is less of a concern, the PRO A10-9700E can leverage its extra cores for these specific tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U is the clear winner for general-purpose computing and single-threaded applications. Its 53.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 20.1% lead in Geekbench single-core make it far more responsive for everyday tasks like web browsing, office productivity, and light photo editing. The higher IPC of the Zen architecture means that even with fewer cores, it feels snappier for most users. Its win in Cinebench R15 multi-core and Geekbench multi-core further solidifies its position as the better all-around performer. The Ryzen 3 3250U is the superior choice for a mobile device, where its 15 W TDP is a critical advantage, and the performance data confirms it does not sacrifice much for this efficiency.

In summary, the PRO A10-9700E is a niche pick for users who prioritize raw multi-core throughput in specific, heavily threaded applications and are working within a desktop platform. The Ryzen 3 3250U is the more versatile and efficient processor, winning in the majority of benchmarks and offering superior single-threaded performance that benefits nearly all common workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U is significantly faster, leading the PRO A10-9700E by 53.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core and 20.1% in Geekbench single-core.

Q: Does the AMD PRO A10-9700E ever outperform the Ryzen 3 3250U?

A: Yes, the PRO A10-9700E wins in one benchmark, Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 2574 versus the Ryzen 3 3250U's 2010, a 28.1% advantage.

Q: How do the core counts and cache sizes compare?

A: The PRO A10-9700E has 4 cores and 4 threads with 2 MB of L2 cache and no L3 cache. The Ryzen 3 3250U has 2 cores and 4 threads with 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The Ryzen 3 3250U has a TDP of 15 W, which is much lower than the PRO A10-9700E's 35 W, indicating it is designed for more power-constrained environments.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench multi-core?

A: The Ryzen 3 3250U edges out the PRO A10-9700E with a score of 1467 against 1430, a slim 2.5% lead.

Q: Which processor has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The PRO A10-9700E has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 919, compared to the Ryzen 3 3250U's 908.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD PRO A10-9700E | AMD Ryzen 3 3250U |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Series | None | 3000 series |

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Zen |

| Codename | Bristol Ridge | Dali |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 3,500 million |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 148 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 512 KB (per core) |

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

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

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 | Radeon Vega 3 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2016-10-02 | 2020-01-05 |