AMD PRO A8-9600 vs Intel Core i3-4130T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though not overwhelming, advantage for the AMD PRO A8-9600 across every Cinebench test in the comparison set. In the five head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD part wins all five, with the Intel Core i3-4130T trailing by a narrow margin of roughly 13.5% to 13.8% in each instance. There is no single test where the Intel processor pulls ahead, and the delta percentages are remarkably uniform, suggesting a stable performance gap rather than a workload-dependent fluctuation.

Starting with the oldest test in the database, Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD PRO A8-9600 scores 284 points against the Intel Core i3-4130T’s 245 points. That is a 13.7% deficit for the Intel part. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap narrows slightly in percentage terms: AMD scores 1184, Intel scores 1024, a 13.5% difference. The single-core R20 test shows the AMD part at 167 versus Intel’s 144, a 13.8% gap, the largest relative difference in the set.

In the more recent Cinebench R23 tests, the pattern holds. Multi-core R23 gives AMD 2820 points and Intel 2440 points, again a 13.5% delta. Single-core R23 gives AMD 398 points and Intel 344 points, a 13.6% gap. The consistency of these deltas is notable: all five tests fall within a 0.3 percentage point band, indicating that the AMD PRO A8-9600’s advantage is not tied to multi-threaded scaling or single-thread efficiency in a way that changes the outcome. It simply scores higher across the board.

For context beyond the head-to-head, the database’s average benchmark scores place the Intel Core i3-4130T at 984 and the AMD PRO A8-9600 at 971. That means the AMD part’s head-to-head wins do not translate into a higher overall average, because the Intel part has additional Geekbench scores recorded while the AMD part does not. The Intel Core i3-4130T posts 1787 in Geekbench multi-core and 903 in single-core, figures that are absent for the AMD PRO A8-9600. This explains why the Intel part sits at the 27th percentile versus the AMD part’s 26th percentile, despite losing every Cinebench matchup.

The nearest rival data reinforces the closeness of these two processors. The Intel Core i3-4130T’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-875K, with an identical average score of 984 (0% delta). The AMD PRO A8-9600’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-2400S, at 968, a 0.3% delta in favor of the AMD part. Interestingly, the AMD part also lists the Intel Core i3-4130 (the non-T variant) as a rival with an average score of 975, a 0.4% deficit for the AMD part. This places the PRO A8-9600 in the same performance neighborhood as the i3-4130 family, with the T version being slightly slower on average.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark wins are entirely one-sided in the head-to-head Cinebench data, but the broader picture requires splitting wins by test category. In the Cinebench suite, the AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all five recorded tests. That includes both multi-core and single-core variants, so the AMD part claims wins in heavily threaded workloads (R15, R20, R23 multi-core) and lightly threaded workloads (R20, R23 single-core). The largest win, in percentage terms, is Cinebench R20 single-core at 13.8% ahead, while the smallest is Cinebench R20 multi-core at 13.5% ahead.

The Intel Core i3-4130T, however, wins in the Geekbench tests, though these are not part of the head-to-head set. The database records Geekbench multi-core at 1787 and single-core at 903 for the Intel part, with no corresponding AMD scores. This means the Intel part has a measurable advantage in Geekbench’s particular workload mix, but the absence of AMD Geekbench data prevents a direct comparison. The Intel part also wins on the aggregate metric: its average benchmark score of 984 is 13 points higher than the AMD part’s 971, and its percentile rank of 27 is one point higher than the AMD part’s 26.

For use-case segmentation, the data suggests the AMD PRO A8-9600 is better suited to rendering-style workloads that Cinebench represents, where its four physical cores and higher base clock contribute to higher scores. The Intel Core i3-4130T, with two cores and four threads, falls behind in those same tests but shows strength in Geekbench, which often favors memory latency and certain integer operations. Users prioritizing Cinebench-style performance should lean toward the AMD part; those relying on Geekbench scores should note the Intel part’s recorded advantages, though without AMD Geekbench numbers, the comparison is incomplete.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design eras and philosophies. The Intel Core i3-4130T uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process, fabricated by Intel. It integrates 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD PRO A8-9600 uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process, fabricated by GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The AMD part has more than double the transistor count and a larger die, but it also draws more power: its TDP is 65 watts versus the Intel part’s 35 watts.

Core counts differ significantly. The Intel part has 2 cores and 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach four execution threads. The AMD part has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no SMT. This means the AMD part has twice the physical core count, but the Intel part’s threads allow it to schedule four logical processors on two cores. The base clocks are close: the Intel part runs at 2.90 GHz with no boost clock, while the AMD part runs at 3.10 GHz base and can boost to 3.40 GHz. The AMD part’s higher base and boost clocks, combined with four physical cores, explain its consistent Cinebench wins.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Intel part has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. The AMD part has 320 KB L1 total and 2 MB L2 total, with no L3 cache at all. The Intel part’s shared L3 provides a larger pool of low-latency cache, which may contribute to its Geekbench showing. The AMD part’s lack of L3 is offset by higher clocks and more cores, but it also means the memory subsystem relies more on the integrated memory controller and system RAM.

Memory support differs by generation. The Intel part uses DDR3 in dual-channel mode, with no bandwidth figure recorded. The AMD part uses DDR4 in dual-channel mode, with a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD part’s memory bandwidth is a clear specification advantage, though the Intel part’s DDR3 support may be more compatible with older platforms. Both parts have integrated graphics: Intel HD 4400 for the Intel part, Radeon R7 for the AMD part. PCIe support shows the Intel part with Gen 3 (no lane count given), while the AMD part has Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU only.

Socket and platform differences are significant. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1150, the AMD part uses AMD Socket AM4. The Intel part was released in August 2013, the AMD part in October 2016, a gap of roughly three years. The AMD part’s production status is listed as Active, while the Intel part has no production status recorded. The Intel part has a part number of SR1NN, the AMD part is AD960BAGM44AB. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database, and both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 284 versus 245 in R15, 1184 versus 1024 in R20, and 2820 versus 2440 in R23, with deltas ranging from 13.5% to 13.7% in its favor.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-4130T have any benchmark wins?

A: In the head-to-head Cinebench set, the Intel part has zero wins. However, it has recorded Geekbench scores that the AMD part lacks: 1787 multi-core and 903 single-core. Its average benchmark score of 984 is higher than the AMD part’s 971.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-4130T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD PRO A8-9600 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part has twice the physical cores, but the Intel part matches thread count via Hyper-Threading.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The Intel part runs at a fixed 2.90 GHz with no boost clock. The AMD part runs at 3.10 GHz base and boosts to 3.40 GHz. The AMD part is faster in both base and maximum clock.

Q: What are the TDP levels?

A: The Intel Core i3-4130T has a TDP of 35 watts. The AMD PRO A8-9600 has a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel part draws nearly half the power of the AMD part.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 supports DDR4 in dual-channel mode with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Core i3-4130T supports DDR3 in dual-channel mode, with no bandwidth figure recorded.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-4130T | AMD PRO A8-9600 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Excavator |

| Codename | Haswell | Bristol Ridge |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB (total) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (total) |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4400 | Radeon R7 |

| Release Date | 2013-08-31 | 2016-10-02 |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Part Number | SR1NN | AD960BAGM44AB |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and platform priorities. For users focused on Cinebench-style rendering performance, the AMD PRO A8-9600 is the stronger choice. It wins every head-to-head Cinebench test by approximately 13.5% to 13.8%, and its four physical cores at higher clocks deliver consistent results across both single-threaded and multi-threaded scenarios. The AMD part also brings DDR4 memory support, a newer socket (AM4), and an active production status, which may matter for current system builds.

For users prioritizing power efficiency or Geekbench performance, the Intel Core i3-4130T has its own merits. Its 35-watt TDP is nearly half the AMD part’s 65 watts, making it the more power-conscious option. Its recorded Geekbench scores (1787 multi-core, 903 single-core) are higher than its Cinebench scores relative to the AMD part’s missing Geekbench data, and its average benchmark score of 984 edges out the AMD part’s 971. The Intel part also has a shared 3 MB L3 cache, which the AMD part lacks entirely.

The percentile ranks are nearly identical: 27th for the Intel part, 26th for the AMD part. The average scores are within 13 points of each other. This is not a contest between a clear winner and loser; it is a choice between two processors that trade blows across different test suites. The AMD PRO A8-9600 takes the Cinebench crown, the Intel Core i3-4130T holds the Geekbench and efficiency edge. Buyers with AM4 motherboards and DDR4 memory should favor the AMD part; those on Socket 1150 platforms with DDR3 should stick with the Intel part. The verdict from the database is that neither processor dominates the other in absolute terms, but the AMD part’s head-to-head sweep makes it the default pick for Cinebench-focused workloads.