AMD PRO A8-8650B vs Intel Core i3-1000NG4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data paints a remarkably consistent picture. The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins every single head-to-head benchmark where both chips have results, taking all five comparisons. The margins are strikingly uniform, hovering around 8.5% in the Intel chip's favor. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD PRO A8-8650B scores 275 against Intel's 301, a delta of -8.6%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where AMD's 1148 trails Intel's 1255 by 8.5%. Even in single-core tests, where the older AMD architecture might be expected to close the gap, the Intel part maintains its edge. Cinebench R20 single-core shows AMD at 162 versus Intel at 177, again an 8.5% deficit.

The consistency is the most revealing detail here. Every deltaPct in the head-to-head table is either -8.5% or -8.6%. That suggests the Intel chip holds a systematic, architecture-wide advantage rather than winning only in specific workloads. The Cinebench R23 results confirm this: multi-core scores are 2734 for AMD versus 2989 for Intel, while single-core shows 386 against 422. The Intel part's smallest win is still a decisive 8.5% margin. There are no benchmark categories where the AMD PRO A8-8650B manages to flip the script. The overall score comparison reinforces this narrative — the AMD chip averages 887 across its benchmark suite, while the Intel chip averages 881, but that average includes tests where only one chip has results, muddying the direct comparison.

What makes this interesting is that the AMD chip has double the physical cores. Four cores against two, yet the Intel part still leads in every multi-threaded test. The Cinebench R15 multi-core delta of 8.6% is particularly telling — that test scales well with core count, and the AMD chip's extra cores are not enough to overcome whatever efficiency advantage Intel's architecture brings. The Intel chip also shows a small but real single-core advantage, which is where the architectural gap becomes most visible. The data does not show a single benchmark where AMD wins, and the win count stands at zero for AMD versus five for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental design philosophies here are separated by roughly five years of silicon evolution. The AMD PRO A8-8650B uses the Steamroller architecture on a 28 nm process built by GlobalFoundries, while the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 employs the Ice Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm node. The transistor counts tell a story of their own: AMD packs 2,411 million transistors into a 245 mm² die, whereas Intel's die is much smaller at 123 mm², though Intel's transistor count is not listed. The node shrink from 28 nm to 10 nm is the obvious headline, but the cache layouts reveal deeper differences.

AMD allocates 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache across its four cores, with no L3 cache at all. Intel's design is per-core for L1 and L2 — 80 KB and 256 KB per core respectively — but adds a 4 MB shared L3 cache. That shared L3 is a significant architectural advantage for the Intel chip, as it allows faster communication between the two cores and provides a larger pool of frequently used data close to the execution units. The AMD chip's reliance on a larger L2 pool without L3 may be a contributor to its benchmark deficit, particularly in single-threaded workloads where cache latency matters.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD part runs DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with a listed bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel chip supports DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, though its bandwidth figure is not provided. The move from DDR3 to DDR4 is a generational step that typically improves memory throughput, even if the exact bandwidth number for Intel is absent. PCI Express support also differs: AMD lists Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while Intel lists only "Gen 3" without specifying lane count. Both chips lack ECC memory support and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The integrated graphics are a notable split. AMD ships with Radeon R7 graphics, while Intel includes Iris Plus with 48 execution units. This is not a direct comparison in the benchmark data, but the presence of a 48EU Iris Plus part suggests Intel's integrated GPU is designed for more demanding visual workloads than AMD's Radeon R7. The sockets could not be more different — AMD uses the desktop-oriented FM2+ socket, while Intel uses the mobile BGA 1044 package. That socket difference alone tells you these chips were built for entirely different physical environments, even before considering the 65 W TDP of the AMD part versus the 9 W TDP of the Intel chip.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Intel chip wins every direct benchmark, the question of "where each one wins" requires a closer look at the data beyond raw performance. The AMD PRO A8-8650B does not win a single head-to-head test, but it does have benchmark results that the Intel chip lacks. Geekbench multi-core shows AMD at 1060 and single-core at 441 — those numbers have no Intel counterpart in the fact pack, so they cannot be compared directly. The AMD chip also posts a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 275 from its own benchmark list, though the head-to-head table only includes R15 multi-core for that test.

The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins all five head-to-head tests, spanning both multi-core and single-core workloads across three different Cinebench versions. The closest margin is the 8.5% win in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and the widest is the 8.6% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core. For users prioritizing raw compute in Cinebench-style workloads, the Intel chip is the clear choice from the data. But the AMD chip's 65 W TDP versus Intel's 9 W TDP suggests a different trade-off. The AMD part draws substantially more power, which in a desktop socket context is acceptable, while the Intel part's 9 W TDP is characteristic of a mobile, battery-conscious design.

The integrated graphics comparison is where AMD might have a claim, though the data does not provide direct GPU benchmarks. AMD's Radeon R7 is a desktop-class integrated GPU, while Intel's Iris Plus with 48EU is a mobile-oriented solution. Without benchmark numbers for either, the data cannot declare a winner in graphics. The market segments are clearly split: AMD targets desktop, Intel targets mobile. The AMD chip's 4 physical cores versus Intel's 2 physical cores could be an advantage in workloads that scale with core count but do not appear in the Cinebench suite — though again, no such benchmark data exists in the fact pack to confirm this.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals where these two chips diverge physically and technically. The AMD PRO A8-8650B offers 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 offers 2 cores and 4 threads — same thread count, but half the physical cores. Base clocks are dramatically different: AMD runs at 3.20 GHz, while Intel's base clock is listed at 1100.00 MHz, a figure that appears to be in MHz rather than GHz, meaning the Intel chip's base clock is roughly 1.1 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 3.90 GHz and Intel at 3.20 GHz. The TDP gap is enormous: 65 W for AMD versus 9 W for Intel.

Sockets, architectures, and process nodes have all been covered, but the remaining fields show further differences. AMD lists its cache as 256 KB L1 and 4 MB L2, while Intel lists per-core L1 and L2 figures plus a shared 4 MB L3. Memory support differs as noted: DDR3 for AMD, DDR4 for Intel. The AMD chip has a listed memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s; Intel's bandwidth is not provided. AMD's PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while Intel's is just Gen 3 with no lane count. Both have integrated graphics but different models — Radeon R7 versus Iris Plus (48EU).

Release dates are separated by several years: the AMD chip launched on September 28, 2015, while the Intel chip launched on March 17, 2020. Both are end-of-life products. Neither has a launch MSRP listed. The AMD part number is AD865BYBI44JC, and the Intel part number is SRGM9. The AMD chip's market segment is Desktop, while Intel's is Mobile. The AMD chip is based on the Godaveri codename within the A8 generation, while Intel uses Ice Lake-Y within the Core i3 (Sunny Cove-Y) generation. Both are dual-channel memory implementations, and neither supports ECC or has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 scores 2989 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 8.5% higher than the AMD PRO A8-8650B's 2734.

Q: Does the AMD chip's higher core count help it win any benchmarks?

A: No. Despite having 4 cores versus Intel's 2, the AMD chip loses all five head-to-head benchmarks, including every multi-core test, with deltas ranging from -8.5% to -8.6%.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 scores 177 in Cinebench R20 single-core, while the AMD PRO A8-8650B scores 162, giving Intel an 8.5% advantage.

Q: How much larger is the AMD chip's die?

A: The AMD PRO A8-8650B has a die size of 245 mm², compared to 123 mm² for the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 — nearly double the area.

Q: Do these chips support ECC memory?

A: Neither the AMD PRO A8-8650B nor the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 supports ECC memory.

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions on each chip?

A: The AMD PRO A8-8650B includes Radeon R7 graphics, while the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 includes Iris Plus with 48 execution units. No direct GPU benchmark data is available in the fact pack.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 outperforms the AMD PRO A8-8650B in every benchmark where both have results. The Intel chip wins all five head-to-head tests with a consistent 8.5-8.6% margin, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. For anyone selecting a CPU based purely on Cinebench and Geekbench performance, the Intel part is the unambiguous choice. Its 2 cores and 4 threads are sufficient to beat AMD's 4 cores and 4 threads across the board, which speaks to the substantial architectural efficiency gains Intel achieved between the 2015-era Steamroller design and the 2020-era Ice Lake architecture.

However, the choice is not purely about benchmark scores. The AMD chip is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, while the Intel chip is a mobile part with a 9 W TDP. These are different classes of hardware for different physical environments. The AMD chip's larger die and higher power draw are acceptable in a desktop chassis, whereas the Intel chip's 9 W TDP is designed for thin-and-light laptops. If the use case is a desktop system with available power and cooling, the AMD chip's higher base and boost clocks (3.20 GHz and 3.90 GHz versus 1.10 GHz and 3.20 GHz) might offer advantages in workloads not covered by the benchmark suite — though the data does not confirm this.

The Intel chip's shared 4 MB L3 cache and DDR4 memory support give it a modern memory hierarchy that likely contributes to its consistent benchmark lead. The AMD chip's lack of L3 cache and reliance on DDR3 puts it at a generational disadvantage that its extra cores cannot overcome. For users who prioritize the benchmark results in the fact pack, the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 is the better performer. For those who need a desktop socket part with four physical cores and are willing to accept lower benchmark scores, the AMD PRO A8-8650B remains a functional option — but the data does not show a single workload where it comes out ahead. The verdict, strictly from the numbers, is that the Intel chip wins on performance, while the AMD chip offers a different form factor and socket compatibility that the benchmarks do not capture.