CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD PRO A12-8870E leads with an average benchmark score of 880, while the Intel Atom C5315 trails at 871. That is a 9-point gap, roughly a 1% difference in aggregate performance.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The AMD PRO A12-8870E wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2558 versus 2533 for the Intel Atom C5315, a 1% advantage. The R15 multi-core test shows a 257-to-255 edge for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel chip have any benchmark advantage at all?

A: No. Across all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, the AMD PRO A12-8870E wins every single one. The Intel Atom C5315 records zero wins in the direct comparison.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: The AMD PRO A12-8870E leads in both single-core tests. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 151 for AMD versus 149 for Intel, a 1.3% delta. In R23 single-core, AMD scores 361 against Intel's 357, a 1.1% gap.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 23rd percentile versus all CPUs. Their average scores place them within 1% of each other, and each has nearest rivals within a 1-point range.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Atom C5315 supports ECC memory, while the AMD PRO A12-8870E does not. Both support DDR4 dual-channel memory with identical 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Atom C5315 is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the AMD PRO A12-8870E uses a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This node difference is substantial: Intel's part is two generations ahead in lithography, which typically translates to better power efficiency per transistor. However, the data shows this architectural advantage does not translate into a performance lead in the tested workloads.

The Atom C5315 is based on the Parker Ridge codename and uses the Tremont microarchitecture, part of the Atom generation. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and no boost clock. The AMD part, codenamed Carrizo, uses the Excavator architecture and also has 4 cores and 4 threads, but runs at a 2.90 GHz base clock with a 3.70 GHz boost clock. That 0.50 GHz base advantage and 3.70 GHz boost capability likely explain the AMD chip's consistent, albeit small, benchmark wins.

Cache configurations differ markedly. The Intel Atom provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 4.5 MB of L2 cache per module. The AMD PRO A12-8870E offers 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache total. Neither chip has L3 cache. The Intel part's larger L2 allocation per module is notable, but it does not overcome the clock speed deficit in these tests.

The Intel chip is a server/workstation part on an Intel BGA 2106 socket, with no integrated graphics. The AMD chip is a desktop part on Socket AM4 and includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The AMD part also has a larger physical footprint: 250 mm² die size and 3,100 million transistors, versus unknown figures for the Intel chip. The Intel part supports ECC memory and PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while AMD supports PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count specified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD PRO A12-8870E wins all five direct comparisons, but the margins are consistently small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 257 against Intel's 255, a delta of -0.8% from Intel's perspective. That is a 2-point difference, well within run-to-run variance but still a win for AMD.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap widens slightly to 11 points: AMD at 1074, Intel at 1063, a 1% delta. The R20 single-core test shows AMD at 151 and Intel at 149, a 1.3% difference. This is the largest percentage margin in the entire comparison, yet still under 2%.

Cinebench R23 multi-core results mirror the R20 pattern: AMD scores 2558, Intel scores 2533, a 1% delta. The R23 single-core test shows AMD at 361 and Intel at 357, a 1.1% gap. Across all tests, AMD's winning margins range from 0.8% to 1.3%, never exceeding a 2-point lead in single-core or an 11-point lead in multi-core.

These results indicate that the AMD chip's higher clock speeds, a 0.50 GHz base advantage and a 3.70 GHz boost capability, provide a consistent but modest performance edge. The Intel part's newer 10 nm process and larger L2 cache do not compensate for the clock deficit in these Cinebench workloads, which are largely frequency-sensitive.

The nearest rival data reinforces the closeness of this pairing. The Intel Atom C5315's closest rival is the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B with an average score of 872, just 0.1% away. The AMD PRO A12-8870E's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 2300U at 880, a 0% delta. Both chips sit in a dense cluster of similarly performing processors, with the Intel part's rivals ranging from 866 to 877 and the AMD part's rivals ranging from 880 to 881.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field except cores, threads, memory type, memory bus, and memory bandwidth. Both have 4 cores and 4 threads, support DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, and offer 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Clock speeds differ: the Intel Atom C5315 has a 2.40 GHz base clock with no boost, while the AMD PRO A12-8870E has a 2.90 GHz base clock and a 3.70 GHz boost. This is the most consequential difference for performance.

Thermal design power differs slightly: Intel at 38W, AMD at 35W. The AMD chip draws 3W less while delivering higher clock speeds, which is notable given its older 28 nm process.

The process node gap is significant: Intel uses 10 nm, AMD uses 28 nm. Foundries differ too: Intel fabricates its own chip, while GlobalFoundries makes the AMD part.

Cache layouts are distinct. Intel provides 64 KB L1 per core and 4.5 MB L2 per module. AMD provides 320 KB total L1 and 2 MB total L2. Neither has L3 cache.

Memory features differ: Intel supports ECC memory, AMD does not. PCIe support also differs: Intel specifies Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while AMD lists Gen 3 without lane details.

Integrated graphics: Intel has none, AMD includes Radeon R7. The AMD part also has published transistor count (3,100 million) and die size (250 mm²), while Intel does not list those figures.

Sockets differ: Intel uses BGA 2106, AMD uses Socket AM4. Market segments differ: Intel targets server/workstation, AMD targets desktop. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $213; the AMD part has no listed launch price.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD PRO A12-8870E is the faster processor in every measured benchmark, but the performance gap is minimal. With a 1% average score advantage (880 versus 871) and wins across all five Cinebench tests, AMD takes the performance crown. The largest single margin is 1.3% in R20 single-core, which is a negligible real-world difference.

However, the Intel Atom C5315 is not without merit. It supports ECC memory, which the AMD part lacks, making it suitable for error-sensitive server or workstation workloads. Its 10 nm process suggests better efficiency per transistor, though the TDP figures show the AMD chip actually consumes less power (35W versus 38W) despite its older node.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark scores, the AMD PRO A12-8870E is the clear choice. For users needing ECC memory support or a server-oriented platform, the Intel Atom C5315 offers a capability the AMD part cannot match. The Intel chip's launch MSRP of $213 provides a price reference point, but the AMD part has no listed price for comparison.

Both chips sit at the 23rd percentile versus all CPUs, indicating they occupy the same performance tier. The AMD part's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 2300U at 880 (0% delta), while the Intel part's nearest rival is the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B at 872 (-0.1%). These are closely matched processors in a crowded low-to-mid performance segment.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A12-8870E wins in every benchmark category tested. In multi-core workloads, Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it holds a 0.8% to 1% lead. In single-core workloads, Cinebench R20 and R23, it leads by 1.1% to 1.3%. This consistency suggests the AMD chip's higher clock speeds (2.90 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost) provide a universal advantage in Cinebench's rendering tasks, which scale with frequency.

The AMD part also wins on integrated graphics. It includes Radeon R7, while the Intel chip has no integrated graphics at all. For systems requiring a display output without a discrete GPU, the AMD PRO A12-8870E is the only option of the two.

The Intel Atom C5315 wins on ECC memory support. This is a functional advantage for server or workstation applications where data integrity is critical. The Intel part also has a larger L2 cache (4.5 MB per module versus 2 MB total), though this does not translate into benchmark wins in the tested workloads.

For power-constrained environments, the AMD chip's 35W TDP is 3W lower than the Intel part's 38W, giving AMD an efficiency edge despite its older 28 nm process. The Intel chip's 10 nm node may offer efficiency advantages in other metrics, but the TDP data shows AMD draws less power.

In terms of platform flexibility, the AMD chip's Socket AM4 is a widely used desktop socket, while the Intel chip's BGA 2106 is a soldered server/workstation form factor. The AMD part's desktop market segment suggests broader consumer motherboard compatibility, though the data does not specify board availability.

For users who need a server/workstation processor with ECC support, the Intel Atom C5315 is the pick. For users who want the fastest Cinebench scores, integrated graphics, or lower TDP, the AMD PRO A12-8870E is the pick. The performance gap is small, but the feature differences, ECC versus iGPU, are the deciding factors beyond the benchmarks.