AMD PRO A10-9700E vs Intel Core i7-940 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably narrow contest between these two desktop processors. Across every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, the Intel Core i7-940 wins, but by a margin so small it borders on statistical noise. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the AMD PRO A10-9700E scores 259 against Intel's 264, a difference of just 1.9 percent. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core: AMD records 1081, Intel records 1102, again a 1.9 percent gap favoring Intel.

Single-core results tell an identical story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD part scores 152 while the Intel part scores 155, another 1.9 percent difference. Cinebench R23 follows the same trajectory: AMD posts 2574 in multi-core versus Intel's 2626, a 2 percent gap, and 363 versus 370 in single-core, once more 1.9 percent. The Intel Core i7-940 claims all five head-to-head benchmark victories, yet the largest margin in the entire dataset is 2 percent.

What does this mean in practical terms? A 2 percent performance difference is imperceptible in real-world workloads. The data suggests these two processors are effectively equivalent in computational throughput, despite being separated by nearly a decade of release dates and radically different design philosophies. The AMD PRO A10-9700E, released in 2016, and the Intel Core i7-940, released in 2008, land within 2 percent of each other on every measured workload.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this conclusion. The AMD processor holds an average benchmark score of 919, while the Intel processor averages 903. That puts AMD ahead by roughly 1.8 percent in the aggregate, even though Intel wins every individual head-to-head test. This apparent contradiction stems from the different benchmark sets: the AMD part includes Geekbench results, which the Intel dataset lacks. The Geekbench multi-core score of 1430 and single-core score of 577 for AMD pull its average up, while Intel's average derives solely from the Cinebench family.

Percentile rankings also align closely. The AMD processor sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel processor sits at the 24th percentile. Both are firmly in the lower quarter of the performance distribution, reflecting their age and modest core configurations. Neither processor is competitive with modern mainstream parts, but against each other, they are nearly indistinguishable.

Architecture Differences

The gulf between these two processors is not in performance but in how they achieve it. The AMD PRO A10-9700E uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-940 uses the older Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, fabricated on Intel's 45 nm process with just 731 million transistors spread across a 263 mm² die. The transistor count difference is staggering: AMD packs more than four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller die.

Both processors feature four physical cores, but they diverge on threads. The AMD part supports four threads total, one per core, while the Intel part supports eight threads through Hyper-Threading. This threading advantage does not translate into a meaningful benchmark lead, as the head-to-head results show. The base and boost clocks tell a similar story: AMD runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, while Intel runs at 2.93 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. AMD holds a slight clock advantage, yet Intel still edges ahead in every test.

Cache hierarchies could hardly be more different. The AMD processor has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The Intel processor has a per-core cache structure: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. This gives Intel a substantial cache capacity advantage, particularly the 8 MB L3, which likely compensates for its lower clock speeds and helps explain the near-parity in benchmark scores despite architectural age.

Memory support reflects their respective eras. The AMD part uses DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, delivering 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel part uses DDR3 on a triple-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded in the database. PCI Express support also differs: AMD provides Gen 3 with 8 CPU-only lanes, while Intel provides Gen 2 without lane specifics. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator. The AMD PRO A10-9700E includes a Radeon R7 graphics core, while the Intel Core i7-940 has no integrated graphics at all. This means the AMD part can power a display without a discrete graphics card, whereas the Intel part requires a separate GPU. The AMD processor is also still marked as active in production, while the Intel processor is end-of-life.

Power consumption reveals the starkest architectural contrast. The AMD processor has a thermal design power of 35 watts, while the Intel processor draws 130 watts. That is nearly a fourfold difference in power envelope. The AMD part achieves comparable benchmark scores while consuming less than a third of the power budget, evidence of the efficiency gains from a decade of process improvements.

Where Each One Wins

Despite Intel's clean sweep of the head-to-head benchmarks, the use-case picture is more nuanced. The Intel Core i7-940 wins every measured performance test, but by margins that never exceed 2 percent. For workloads that rely heavily on multi-threading, such as video encoding or 3D rendering, the Intel part's eight threads and 8 MB L3 cache give it a slight edge, though the data shows this edge is minimal. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2626 versus 2574 represents the largest Intel advantage in the dataset.

The AMD PRO A10-9700E wins on efficiency and platform features. Its 35 watt TDP makes it suitable for compact or low-power systems where the Intel part's 130 watt requirement would be prohibitive. The built-in Radeon R7 graphics eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic desktop tasks, something the Intel part cannot offer. For office productivity, web browsing, or media playback, the AMD processor provides a complete platform on its own.

Socket compatibility also favors the AMD part in practical terms. It uses AMD Socket AM4, which supports DDR4 memory and modern motherboard features. The Intel part uses Socket 1366, a platform from 2008 that requires DDR3 memory and older chipsets. Building a system around the Intel part today would mean sourcing legacy components, while the AMD part can drop into a contemporary AM4 board.

The Geekbench results for the AMD processor, which are absent from the Intel dataset, suggest that in some workloads the AMD part may hold a broader advantage. The Geekbench multi-core score of 1430 and single-core score of 577 indicate decent general-purpose performance. Without corresponding Intel Geekbench numbers, a direct comparison is impossible, but the AMD part's inclusion of these benchmarks in its profile suggests the database has more complete coverage of its capabilities.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i7-940 wins all multi-core benchmarks in the head-to-head data. It scores 264 versus 259 in Cinebench R15, 1102 versus 1081 in Cinebench R20, and 2626 versus 2574 in Cinebench R23. The margin is consistently around 2 percent.

Q: Does the AMD processor have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD PRO A10-9700E includes a Radeon R7 integrated graphics core. The Intel Core i7-940 has no integrated graphics, meaning it requires a separate graphics card for display output.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD processor has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Intel processor has a TDP of 130 watts. The AMD part consumes significantly less power while delivering nearly identical benchmark performance.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The AMD processor supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel processor supports DDR3 on a triple-channel bus, and no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD PRO A10-9700E is listed as active in production, while the Intel Core i7-940 is marked as end-of-life.

Q: What are their percentile rankings among all CPUs?

A: The AMD processor sits at the 25th percentile, and the Intel processor sits at the 24th percentile. Both are in the lower quarter of the performance distribution.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the Intel Core i7-940 wins every head-to-head benchmark, but the practical significance of those wins is negligible. A 1.9 to 2 percent performance difference across all tests means users will not perceive a speed difference between these two processors in everyday tasks. The Intel part's eight threads and 8 MB L3 cache give it a theoretical advantage in heavily threaded workloads, but the benchmark results show that advantage is minimal in practice.

The AMD PRO A10-9700E is the more sensible choice for most users, based strictly on the recorded data. Its 35 watt TDP makes it far more efficient than the Intel part's 130 watt envelope. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU. Its AM4 socket and DDR4 memory support align with modern platform standards. Its active production status means it remains available for new systems.

The Intel Core i7-940 appeals only to a narrow audience: those who specifically need the slight multi-threaded edge it provides and who have access to legacy Socket 1366 motherboards and DDR3 memory. Even then, the performance gain is 2 percent at most, which is unlikely to justify the platform compromises.

For a new build, the AMD part wins on efficiency, platform compatibility, and integrated graphics. For squeezing the last bit of multi-core performance from an older platform, the Intel part technically leads, but the data does not support treating that lead as meaningful. The average benchmark scores, 919 for AMD versus 903 for Intel, actually put the AMD part ahead overall, which further undermines the case for choosing Intel based on performance alone.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD PRO A10-9700E | Intel Core i7-940 |

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

| Architecture | Excavator | Nehalem |

| Codename | Bristol Ridge | Bloomfield |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 45 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 731 million |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 263 mm² |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.93 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 130 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1366 |

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

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

| L3 Cache | None | 8 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

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

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 | None |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2016-10-02 | 2008-11-16 |

| Part Number | AD970BAHM44AB | SLBCK |

The specification table highlights the fundamental divide: AMD uses a modern, efficient design with integrated graphics and current memory standards, while Intel relies on an older, power-hungry architecture with more threads and a larger cache. The benchmark data shows these differences cancel out in raw performance, leaving efficiency and platform features as the deciding factors.