AMD PRO A12-9800E vs Intel Core i3-4350T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i3-4350T across all five Cinebench comparisons, though the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel part scores 271 against 266 for the AMD PRO A12-9800E, a 1.9% edge. Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the Intel chip again leads, 1130 to 1111, with a 1.7% delta. The R23 multicore test follows the same pattern: 2692 for Intel versus 2646 for AMD, again a 1.7% gap.

Single-core results tell a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel Core i3-4350T posts 159 versus 156 for the AMD PRO A12-9800E, a 1.9% advantage. The R23 single-core test shows 380 against 373, maintaining that same 1.9% lead. What is striking here is not the size of the margins, but their consistency. Every benchmark, whether multi-threaded or single-threaded, lands between 1.7% and 1.9% in favor of Intel. That uniformity suggests the advantage is structural, not workload-specific.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this picture. The Intel part carries an average score of 926, while the AMD chip sits at 910. That 16-point gap places the Intel Core i3-4350T in the 25th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 24th percentile for the AMD PRO A12-9800E. The nearest rivals for each chip are revealing. The Intel part's closest competitors include the Intel Core i5-4288U at 927 (0.1% faster), the Intel Celeron G6900TE at 925 (0.2% slower), and the Intel Core i7-870 at 928 (0.2% faster). The AMD part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U at 908 (0.2% slower), the Intel Core i3-10110Y at 908 (0.2% slower), and the Intel Core i3-4330T at 908 (0.2% slower).

Notice that the AMD PRO A12-9800E's closest rival list includes the Intel Core i3-4330T, which is essentially a sibling of the i3-4350T. This means the AMD chip is bracketed by Intel parts from the same Haswell family, and it trails them all by a hair. The data implies that despite having twice the physical cores, the AMD processor cannot convert that hardware advantage into meaningful benchmark wins.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-4350T wins all five head-to-head tests, taking 5 wins to 0 for the AMD PRO A12-9800E. The margins are slim, ranging from 1.7% to 1.9%, but they are consistent across every workload measured. For a user optimizing purely for Cinebench performance, the Intel chip is the correct choice. Its 25th percentile standing versus the AMD part's 24th percentile is a small but real separation.

However, the data also suggests that these two processors are remarkably close in raw compute capability. A 1.7% to 1.9% delta is within the range of run-to-run variance on many systems. The average scores, 926 versus 910, indicate that in day-to-day use, most users would struggle to perceive any difference. The AMD PRO A12-9800E is not a poor performer; it simply loses every measured comparison by a narrow margin.

For a buyer facing a choice between these two, the deciding factor is not likely to be the Cinebench scores alone. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $138, and it is end-of-life. The AMD part is still active in production. The data does not include a launch MSRP for the AMD chip, so no direct price comparison is possible from the database. What the data does show is that the Intel part holds a slight but universal performance edge, while the AMD part offers a newer socket and active production status.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The Intel Core i3-4350T uses the Haswell architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel's foundry. The AMD PRO A12-9800E uses the Excavator architecture, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. That process gap is significant: the Intel die is 177 mm² with 1,400 million transistors, while the AMD die is 250 mm² with 3,100 million transistors.

The transistor counts tell an interesting story. The AMD chip packs more than twice as many transistors (3,100 million versus 1,400 million) into a larger die, yet it still loses every benchmark. This suggests that the Excavator architecture, which is a refined version of AMD's older Bulldozer-derived designs, is less efficient per transistor than Intel's Haswell design. The Intel part achieves its performance with far fewer transistors, which indicates a more efficient microarchitecture.

Cache configurations also differ sharply. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 320 KB of total L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The lack of an L3 cache on the AMD part is a notable architectural disadvantage, as it means the processor must rely more heavily on system memory for data that would otherwise be cached.

The memory support differs as well. The Intel part uses DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and a measured bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The AMD part uses DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus, but the database does not list a bandwidth figure for it. The socket situation is also different: Intel uses Socket 1150, while AMD uses Socket AM4. The PCIe configurations differ, with the Intel part offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) versus 8 lanes for the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference. The Intel Core i3-4350T has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD PRO A12-9800E has 4 cores and 4 threads. Both have a base clock of 3.10 GHz, but the AMD part adds a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Intel part has no boost clock listed. The Intel part relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 4 threads from 2 cores, while the AMD part uses its 4 physical cores directly.

The process nodes differ: 22 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for AMD. The foundries also differ: Intel for the i3-4350T, GlobalFoundries for the PRO A12-9800E. Transistor counts and die sizes are not the same, as noted above. The cache hierarchies are entirely different, with Intel using a per-core L1 and L2 plus a shared L3, while AMD uses aggregate L1 and L2 figures with no L3.

Memory support is DDR3 for Intel and DDR4 for AMD. The measured memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s applies only to the Intel part. The PCIe lane counts differ: 16 lanes for Intel versus 8 lanes for AMD, both Gen 3. The integrated graphics differ: Intel HD 4600 for the i3-4350T versus Radeon R7 for the PRO A12-9800E.

Release dates are far apart. The Intel part launched on 2014-05-10, while the AMD part launched on 2017-07-26. Production status also differs: the Intel part is end-of-life, while the AMD part is active. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $138, while the AMD part has no listed launch MSRP. Both parts have locked multipliers, and neither supports ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i3-4350T wins all 5 head-to-head comparisons against the AMD PRO A12-9800E, with deltas ranging from 1.7% to 1.9%.

Q: How much faster is the Intel part in single-core tests?

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel part scores 159 versus 156 for AMD, a 1.9% lead. In R23 single-core, it scores 380 versus 373, also a 1.9% lead.

Q: Does the AMD processor's 4-core design help it in multi-core tests?

A: No. Despite having 4 cores versus 2, the AMD part loses all three multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by margins of 1.7% to 1.9%.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-4350T has an average benchmark score of 926, while the AMD PRO A12-9800E has an average score of 910.

Q: What is the difference in memory support?

A: The Intel part supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD part supports DDR4. Both use a dual-channel bus, but only the Intel part has a listed bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Intel part sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 24th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-4350T wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. It takes the multi-core tests in Cinebench R15 (271 versus 266), R20 (1130 versus 1111), and R23 (2692 versus 2646). It also wins both single-core tests in R20 (159 versus 156) and R23 (380 versus 373). The margins are consistent, between 1.7% and 1.9%, which indicates a stable performance advantage across different Cinebench versions and workload types.

The AMD PRO A12-9800E does not win any of the five head-to-head benchmarks. Its best showing is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 2646 against Intel's 2692, a 1.7% gap. The data does not show any test where the AMD part comes out ahead.

This creates a clear use-case split, though it is one-sided. For any workload that is represented by the Cinebench suite, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the Intel Core i3-4350T is the better performer. The AMD part's 4 physical cores do not compensate for its architectural limitations, particularly the lack of L3 cache and the older Excavator design.

However, the AMD part has advantages that are not captured by the benchmark data. It is still in active production, while the Intel part is end-of-life. It uses a newer socket (AM4) and supports DDR4 memory. These factors could matter for system longevity and upgrade paths, even though they do not show up in Cinebench scores. The Intel part, meanwhile, offers more PCIe lanes (16 versus 8) and a smaller die with fewer transistors, which suggests lower manufacturing complexity.

The data implies that a user building a new system today would see nearly identical Cinebench performance from either chip, with a slight edge going to Intel. But the AMD part's active production status and DDR4 support might make it the pragmatic choice for new builds, despite its benchmark deficit. The Intel part, with its higher average score of 926 and 25th percentile ranking, remains the performance pick for pure compute, but only by a narrow margin.