CPU Comparison

Intel Core i3-7300 vs AMD PRO A12-8870: the data is unambiguous. Across every benchmark recorded, the Intel Core i3-7300 wins, with margins that are both consistent and substantial. The AMD PRO A12-8870, despite having twice the physical cores, cannot overcome the Intel's per-core efficiency. The result is a 5-0 sweep for the i3-7300, with an average score gap of roughly 20% in every test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i3-7300 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the margins are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel scores 388 against AMD's 324, yielding a 19.8% advantage. This is not a narrow win; it is a decisive gap. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where Intel scores 1619 versus 1351, again a 19.8% delta. The i3-7300's dominance extends to single-core tests, where it scores 228 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus AMD's 190, a full 20% lead. This consistency across different workload types indicates a fundamental performance advantage, not a quirk of a particular benchmark.

The most recent test, Cinebench R23, reinforces the trend. In multi-core, the i3-7300 scores 3856 against the PRO A12-8870's 3218, a 19.8% edge. In single-core, Intel scores 544 versus 454, again a 19.8% delta. Notably, the AMD chip does not win a single test. The data shows no scenario where the four-core AMD design manages to leverage its core count advantage. The Intel i3-7300, with just two physical cores but four threads, delivers higher scores across the board.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the severity of these numbers. The i3-7300's average benchmark score is 1115, placing it in the 31st percentile of all CPUs. Its closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 1200, with an average score of 1116 (a 0% delta), and the Intel Core i5-3550S at 1118 (-0.3%). The AMD PRO A12-8870 also sits at the 31st percentile, with an average score of 1107. Its nearest rival is the AMD Opteron 4280 at 1107 (0% delta) and the AMD Athlon X4 845 at 1106 (0.1% delta). Both processors occupy a similar performance tier overall, but the head-to-head data reveals that within that tier, the Intel chip is consistently ahead by a wide margin.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 is faster in every recorded multi-core test. It leads by 19.8% in Cinebench R15 (388 vs 324), Cinebench R20 (1619 vs 1351), and Cinebench R23 (3856 vs 3218).

Q: Does the AMD's four physical cores help it in any benchmark?

A: No. Despite having four cores versus the Intel's two, the AMD PRO A12-8870 loses every benchmark. The Intel i3-7300's multi-core scores are consistently about 19.8% higher, indicating the AMD's core count does not translate into a performance win.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Intel i3-7300 has a 20% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core (228 vs 190) and a 19.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (544 vs 454). This shows a clear per-core advantage for Intel.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i3-7300's average score of 1115 is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 3 1200 (1116, 0% delta) and slightly behind the Intel Core i5-3550S (1118, -0.3%). The AMD PRO A12-8870's average of 1107 is tied with the AMD Opteron 4280 (1107, 0% delta).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory with a dual-channel memory bus and have an identical memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz. The AMD PRO A12-8870 has a lower base clock of 3.70 GHz, but it does offer a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, which the Intel does not have.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is stark, explaining the performance gap. The Intel Core i3-7300 is built on the Kaby Lake architecture using a 14 nm process node from Intel. It features 2 cores and 4 threads, utilizing Intel's Hyper-Threading technology to process four threads simultaneously. Its cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 4 MB L3 cache.

The AMD PRO A12-8870, in contrast, is based on the much older Excavator architecture (codename Carrizo) built on a 28 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. This is a larger, less efficient process node. The AMD chip has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. Its cache structure is different: 320 KB of L1 cache, 2 MB of L2 cache, and no L3 cache at all. The AMD chip also has significantly more transistors (3,100 million) and a larger die size (250 mm²), reflecting the older manufacturing process.

These architectural choices have direct consequences. The Intel's 14 nm process allows for higher clock speeds at lower power, while the AMD's 28 nm process is a generation behind. The Intel's L3 cache provides a fast pool of shared memory for both cores, whereas the AMD chip lacks this entirely. The AMD's core count advantage is neutralized by the Intel's superior per-core architecture and cache hierarchy. Furthermore, the Intel integrates HD 630 graphics, while the AMD integrates Radeon R7 graphics. Both support DDR4 memory and have a dual-channel memory bus, but the underlying silicon is fundamentally different in age and efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields. The most obvious difference is core and thread count: the Intel Core i3-7300 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD PRO A12-8870 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Intel running at 4.00 GHz versus the AMD's 3.70 GHz. The AMD offers a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, a feature the Intel lacks entirely.

Power consumption is another differentiator. The Intel has a TDP of 51 watts, while the AMD has a higher TDP of 65 watts. This indicates the Intel achieves higher performance while drawing less power, a direct result of the newer 14 nm process versus the AMD's 28 nm process. The sockets are incompatible: the Intel uses Intel Socket 1151, while the AMD uses AMD Socket AM4. The process node also differs, as noted, with Intel at 14 nm and AMD at 28 nm.

Cache specifications are also distinct. The Intel has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a 4 MB L3 cache. The AMD has a total of 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache. The transistor count and die size are only listed for the AMD (3,100 million transistors, 250 mm²), while the Intel's are null in the data. The integrated graphics differ, with Intel's HD 630 versus AMD's Radeon R7. The Intel's PCIe support is listed as "Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only)", while the AMD's is just "Gen 3". Finally, the Intel has a release date of January 2017 and a part number of SR359, whereas the AMD's release date is null and its part number is AD887BAUM44AB.

The Verdict

The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Core i3-7300 is the superior processor in every measured category. The benchmark data shows a consistent 19.8% to 20% lead for the Intel across all five Cinebench tests, covering both multi-core and single-core workloads. The AMD PRO A12-8870's four-core design does not provide any advantage; it loses every head-to-head comparison. The Intel achieves this dominance with a lower TDP (51 watts vs 65 watts), a smaller process node (14 nm vs 28 nm), and an L3 cache that the AMD lacks entirely.

While both processors sit in the 31st percentile of all CPUs and have nearly identical average benchmark scores (1115 for Intel, 1107 for AMD), the head-to-head data reveals that the Intel is the stronger chip within that tier. The AMD's only potential advantage is its boost clock of 4.20 GHz, but the data shows this does not translate into a single benchmark win. For any user choosing between these two specific models, the Intel Core i3-7300 is the clear pick based on performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-7300 wins in every scenario that can be measured from the provided data. It wins multi-core workloads across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, with a 19.8% margin in each. It wins single-core workloads in Cinebench R20 (20% lead) and Cinebench R23 (19.8% lead). Its lower TDP of 51 watts, compared to the AMD's 65 watts, suggests it is also more power-efficient, which is an advantage for thermally constrained systems.

The AMD PRO A12-8870 does not win any benchmark. There is no test in the data where it outperforms the Intel chip. However, it does offer a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, which the Intel lacks, and it has four physical cores, which may be relevant for workloads not captured in this benchmark suite. It also has a larger transistor count (3,100 million) and a larger die size (250 mm²), though these are specifications, not performance advantages. The AMD's integrated Radeon R7 graphics might be preferable to some users over Intel's HD 630, but the data does not include graphics benchmarks. In the absence of any benchmark win, the AMD PRO A12-8870's role is limited to being the alternative choice for users who specifically need an AMD Socket AM4 platform or who prioritize its physical core count over the measured performance deficits.