AMD PRO A8-9600 vs Intel Core i3-4360T Comparison

The AMD PRO A8-9600 and Intel Core i3-4360T are two older desktop processors that land in the same performance tier, with average benchmark scores of 971 and 963 respectively. Both sit at the 26th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are entry-level parts by modern standards. The data shows a remarkably close contest, with the AMD chip winning all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but by margins so slim that they would be imperceptible in real-world use. The real differentiators are platform features, power consumption, and memory support, not raw compute speed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins every single benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. Its margins range from 0.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core to 1.2% in Cinebench R20 single-core. These are statistical ties in practice, but the AMD part does consistently come out ahead. The largest advantage is in single-core performance, where the 1.2% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core is its best showing.

The Intel Core i3-4360T does not win any of the five head-to-head benchmarks. However, its strengths lie outside pure compute. The 35W TDP is nearly half of the AMD's 65W, making it the clear choice for power-constrained builds or systems where heat output matters. The Intel part also uses DDR3 memory, which can be an advantage if you already own that platform, while the AMD part requires DDR4.

For users who already own a Socket 1150 motherboard, the i3-4360T makes sense as a drop-in upgrade. For those starting fresh, the AMD PRO A8-9600's Socket AM4 platform offers a more modern memory standard and a path to newer AMD processors. The benchmark data does not favor one over the other for raw speed, so the decision hinges on platform compatibility and power budgets.

Architecture Differences

The AMD PRO A8-9600 is built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, using a 28nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. This is a modular design with four physical cores and four threads, running at a base clock of 3.10 GHz with a boost clock of 3.40 GHz.

The Intel Core i3-4360T uses the Haswell architecture on Intel's 22nm process. It contains 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. This is a dual-core design with Hyper-Threading, providing two physical cores and four threads. The base clock is 3.20 GHz, and there is no boost clock listed. Intel's smaller process node and simpler core layout explain how it achieves a lower TDP of 35W versus the AMD's 65W.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD part has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. This L3 cache advantage is significant for the Intel part, as it provides a larger pool of fast memory for frequently accessed data.

Memory support is a major divergence. The AMD PRO A8-9600 supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with a theoretical bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Core i3-4360T supports DDR3 memory, also dual-channel, but no bandwidth figure is provided. This means the AMD part has access to newer, potentially faster memory technology, while the Intel part is tied to older DDR3 modules.

The integrated graphics differ as well. AMD includes a Radeon R7 iGPU, while Intel has HD 4600 graphics. Neither is documented with specific performance numbers in the fact pack, but they represent different feature sets for systems without discrete GPUs. PCIe support is Gen 3 for both, but the AMD part only provides 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part lists Gen 3 without a lane count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the AMD PRO A8-9600 scoring 284 against the Intel's 282, a 0.7% lead. This is a difference of just two points, which is within run-to-run variance for most systems. The AMD's four physical cores offset the Intel's higher clock speed and L3 cache in this heavily threaded workload.

Cinebench R20 multi-core gives the AMD part a score of 1184 versus 1175 for the Intel, a 0.8% advantage. The AMD widens its lead slightly in this newer test, suggesting its architecture scales a bit better with the updated rendering workload. The 9-point gap remains trivial for real-world tasks.

In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD PRO A8-9600 scores 167 against 165 for the Intel, a 1.2% lead. This is the largest margin in any test. The AMD's higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz compared to the Intel's fixed 3.20 GHz likely contributes to this result. Still, a 2-point difference in a single-threaded test is not something a user would notice.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows AMD at 2820 and Intel at 2799, again a 0.8% gap. The pattern holds: the AMD part consistently leads by a small but consistent margin across all Cinebench versions. The R23 single-core test gives AMD 398 versus Intel's 395, a 0.8% lead.

The data tells a clear story. The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all five tests, but the largest margin is 1.2%, and most are under 1%. These scores are effectively identical for practical purposes. A user upgrading from one to the other would see no measurable difference in application performance. The average benchmark scores reflect this: 971 for AMD versus 963 for Intel, a difference of less than 1%.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that neither processor has a meaningful performance advantage over the other. The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all head-to-head tests, but the margins are so small that they are negligible. Both parts sit at the 26th percentile, placing them in the same performance class as older mainstream chips like the Intel Core i5-2400S and AMD A10-7870K.

Choose the AMD PRO A8-9600 if you are building on a Socket AM4 platform and want DDR4 memory support. It also offers a Radeon R7 integrated GPU and a boost clock that reaches 3.40 GHz. The four physical cores without Hyper-Threading are a straightforward design, and the 65W TDP is manageable with a capable air cooler.

Choose the Intel Core i3-4360T if you already own a Socket 1150 motherboard with DDR3 memory. The 35W TDP makes it far more efficient, which is ideal for small form factor builds or systems where power draw is a priority. The 4 MB of L3 cache is a notable advantage over the AMD's complete lack of L3 cache, even if it does not translate into higher benchmark scores.

The data does not support a clear winner for new builds. The AMD part edges ahead in every test, but the Intel part uses less than half the power. If your priority is raw benchmark numbers, the AMD PRO A8-9600 is technically the winner. If your priority is efficiency and platform compatibility, the Intel Core i3-4360T is the practical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all three multi-core tests: Cinebench R15 (284 vs 282), R20 (1184 vs 1175), and R23 (2820 vs 2799). The margins are between 0.7% and 0.8%.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 leads in Cinebench R20 single-core with 167 against 165 (1.2% lead) and in R23 single-core with 398 against 395 (0.8% lead).

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T has a TDP of 35W, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 has a TDP of 65W. The Intel part uses significantly less power.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The AMD PRO A8-9600 supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Intel Core i3-4360T supports DDR3. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 has no L3 cache. The AMD part has 2 MB of L2 cache, while Intel has 256 KB per core.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 has an average benchmark score of 971, and the Intel Core i3-4360T has 963. This is a difference of 0.8%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD PRO A8-9600 | Intel Core i3-4360T |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | None |

| TDP | 65W | 35W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Haswell |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

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

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 177 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | None | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

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

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

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 | Intel HD 4600 |

| Release Date | 2016-10-02 | 2014-07-20 |