CPU Comparison

The AMD PRO A12-9800E and Intel Core i7-940 are separated by nearly a decade of silicon evolution, yet their benchmark results tell a story of remarkable parity. The AMD part, built on a 28 nm process with four Excavator cores, edges out the older 45 nm Nehalem flagship in every recorded test, but the margins are razor-thin, never exceeding a 0.8% delta. Both processors land at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores sit just 7 points apart (910 vs 903), making this a contest decided by fractions rather than fundamental superiority.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD PRO A12-9800E sweeps all five head-to-head comparisons, but the victories are statistical hair-splits. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 266 against Intel’s 264, a 0.8% advantage. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where 1111 beats 1102 by the same 0.8% margin. The single-core tests tell an identical story: the AMD posts 156 in R20 single-core versus 155 for the Intel, a 0.6% edge, and 373 versus 370 in R23 single-core for another 0.8% win.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD reaches 2646 and the Intel trails at 2626, still only a 0.8% difference. Across all five tests, the AMD wins by margins that would be imperceptible in real-world use. The data shows a consistent, if tiny, AMD advantage in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, suggesting the newer Excavator architecture extracts slightly more efficiency from its four cores and four threads than Nehalem does from its four cores and eight threads.

Notably, the Intel i7-940’s hyper-threading advantage, eight threads versus four, does not translate into a multi-core win. The AMD’s higher base clock of 3.10 GHz versus 2.93 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz likely compensate for the missing threads. The result is a dead heat where the AMD’s clock speed advantage offsets Intel’s thread count advantage, leaving the newer part marginally ahead in every metric.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A12-9800E wins every benchmark in this comparison, but the context matters. Its victories are narrow enough that neither processor can claim a meaningful performance category. In multi-core workloads, the AMD leads by 0.8% in R15, R20, and R23, meaning rendering and video encoding tasks will show no measurable difference. In single-core workloads, the AMD’s 0.6–0.8% lead suggests slightly snappier response in lightly threaded applications, but again, the margin is within run-to-run variance.

The Intel i7-940, despite losing all five tests, holds structural advantages that do not appear in Cinebench scores. It supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, which provides a wider memory bus than the AMD’s dual-channel DDR4 support, though the data does not include memory bandwidth figures to quantify this. The Intel also features 8 MB of shared L3 cache, a resource the AMD lacks entirely (its cache hierarchy tops out at 2 MB L2). In cache-sensitive workloads not represented in these Cinebench results, the Intel could potentially close or reverse the gap.

The AMD wins on platform modernity: it uses Socket AM4 with PCIe Gen 3 (8 CPU lanes) and includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, while the Intel has no integrated graphics and relies on PCIe Gen 2. For systems requiring a display output without a discrete GPU, the AMD is the only viable option here. The AMD also draws 35 W TDP versus the Intel’s 130 W, meaning it delivers comparable performance at a fraction of the power envelope, though the data does not include wattage figures beyond these TDP ratings.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous winner: the AMD PRO A12-9800E outperforms the Intel Core i7-940 in every recorded test, but the victory is purely symbolic. With margins of 0.6–0.8% across all Cinebench versions, neither processor offers a practical performance advantage over the other. Users should choose based on platform requirements, not benchmark scores.

The AMD is the pick for anyone needing integrated graphics, a modern AM4 socket, DDR4 memory support, or lower power consumption (35 W TDP versus 130 W). The Intel is the pick for those who already own an LGA 1366 platform, require triple-channel memory, or need the larger 8 MB L3 cache for legacy workloads. The Intel’s eight threads give it theoretical headroom in heavily threaded applications, but the data shows no such advantage materializing in Cinebench.

Production status also favors the AMD: it remains listed as Active, while the Intel is End-of-life. For new builds, the AMD is the only sensible choice given its active status and modern platform. For upgrading an existing 1366 system, the Intel remains a functional, if dated, option. The verdict from the data: the AMD wins by a hair, but the real decision hinges on socket, memory, and graphics requirements, all of which the AMD addresses more completely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800E averages 910, while the Intel Core i7-940 averages 903, a 7-point difference favoring the AMD.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel has 4 cores and 8 threads, thanks to hyper-threading.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is 0.8%, achieved in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The smallest is 0.6% in Cinebench R20 single-core.

Q: Do both processors support integrated graphics?

A: No. The AMD includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The Intel has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The AMD supports dual-channel DDR4. The Intel supports triple-channel DDR3.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD has no L3 cache; its largest cache level is 2 MB of L2.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by nearly nine years of development. The AMD PRO A12-9800E uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-940 uses the Nehalem architecture on a 45 nm process from Intel, with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The AMD’s newer process allows roughly four times the transistor density, enabling higher clock speeds at dramatically lower power.

The core configurations diverge in threading: AMD provides 4 cores and 4 threads, while Intel provides 4 cores and 8 threads via simultaneous multithreading. The AMD compensates with higher clocks: 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost versus Intel’s 2.93 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. Cache hierarchies differ substantially, the AMD uses 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, while the Intel uses 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 8 MB shared L3. The AMD’s lack of L3 cache is a notable architectural gap, though its higher clocks appear to offset this in Cinebench.

Platform support separates them further. The AMD uses Socket AM4 with PCIe Gen 3 (8 CPU lanes) and dual-channel DDR4 memory. The Intel uses Socket 1366 with PCIe Gen 2 and triple-channel DDR3 memory. The AMD includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics; the Intel has none. Power consumption differs drastically: the AMD is rated at 35 W TDP, the Intel at 130 W. The AMD remains in active production with a 2017 release date, while the Intel was released in 2008 and is now end-of-life. These differences explain why the AMD, despite winning by only fractions, is the more practical modern choice.