AMD PRO A8-9600 vs Intel Core i3-4370T Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score, the Intel Core i3-4370T or the AMD PRO A8-9600?

A: The Intel Core i3-4370T records an average benchmark score of 983, compared to the AMD PRO A8-9600's 971. Both processors sit at the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-4370T has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel part relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 4 threads, while the AMD part uses 4 physical cores.

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-4370T has a base clock of 3.30 GHz, which is higher than the AMD PRO A8-9600's base clock of 3.10 GHz. However, the AMD part also offers a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, which is substantially higher than the Intel Core i3-4370T's DDR3 bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has the larger L1 cache?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 has 320 KB of L1 cache, while the Intel Core i3-4370T has 64 KB per core. With 2 cores, the Intel part totals 128 KB of L1 cache.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two processors?

A: The Intel Core i3-4370T is end-of-life, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 is listed as active production.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-4370T and AMD PRO A8-9600 represent fundamentally different design approaches from their respective manufacturers. The Intel part is built on the Haswell architecture using a 22 nm process node from Intel's own foundry, while the AMD part uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. These process differences are reflected in transistor counts and die sizes: the Intel chip packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die, whereas the AMD chip contains 3,100 million transistors across a 250 mm² die.

The core configurations diverge significantly. The Intel Core i3-4370T offers 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 provides 4 physical cores with 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading on the AMD side. This difference matters for workloads that scale with physical cores versus those that benefit from additional threads. The Intel part's advantage in single-threaded performance comes from its higher base clock of 3.30 GHz and architectural efficiency, while the AMD part's boost clock of 3.40 GHz provides some headroom but starts from a lower 3.10 GHz base.

Cache hierarchies also differ considerably. The Intel Core i3-4370T has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD PRO A8-9600 instead provides 320 KB of L1 cache total, 2 MB of L2 cache total, and no L3 cache at all. The absence of L3 cache on the AMD part is a notable architectural disadvantage, as the Intel processor can rely on a larger shared cache pool for frequently accessed data. The Intel part also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD part supports PCIe Gen 3 with only 8 lanes.

Memory support marks another major division. The Intel Core i3-4370T uses dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s. The AMD part's memory bandwidth advantage is substantial, though the Intel part's older DDR3 support reflects its earlier release date of March 2015 versus the AMD part's October 2016 release. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

The integrated graphics also differ: the Intel part carries Intel HD 4600, while the AMD part features Radeon R7 graphics. Both processors target the desktop market segment, with the Intel part using Socket 1150 and the AMD part using Socket AM4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results across all five Cinebench tests show a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel Core i3-4370T. The largest margin comes in the Cinebench R20 multicore test, where the Intel part scores 1199 against the AMD part's 1184, a delta of 1.3%. The same 1.3% margin appears in the Cinebench R23 multicore test, with scores of 2856 and 2820 respectively.

In single-core tests, the Intel part also leads, but by slightly varying margins. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows the Intel Core i3-4370T scoring 169 against the AMD PRO A8-9600's 167, a 1.2% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core test produces 403 for the Intel part versus 398 for the AMD part, again a 1.3% delta. The Cinebench R15 multicore test yields the smallest margin at 1.1%, with scores of 287 and 284.

The data indicates that the Intel Core i3-4370T wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, despite having half the physical core count of its competitor. This outcome suggests that the Intel architecture's per-core efficiency and Hyper-Threading capability compensate for the core count disadvantage. The AMD PRO A8-9600's four physical cores do not translate into a multicore advantage in these Cinebench workloads, likely due to the lack of L3 cache and the older Excavator architecture's lower instructions-per-clock throughput.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Intel Core i3-4370T's average score of 983 ties exactly with the Intel Xeon X3470, sits 0.1% above the Intel Core i3-4130T and Intel Core i7-875K, and 0.3% above the Intel Xeon W5590. The AMD PRO A8-9600's average score of 971 places it 0.3% above the Intel Core i5-2400S and AMD Ryzen 7 3700U, while sitting 0.4% below both the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130.

The pattern across tests shows that the Intel part's advantage is remarkably consistent, hovering around 1.1% to 1.3% regardless of workload type. This consistency indicates that the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific, stemming from architectural efficiency rather than any particular benchmark characteristic.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core i3-4370T operates with 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 provides 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks stand at 3.30 GHz for the Intel part and 3.10 GHz for the AMD part, with the AMD processor additionally offering a 3.40 GHz boost clock that the Intel processor does not have.

Thermal design power separates the two significantly: the Intel part draws 35 W, while the AMD part draws 65 W, nearly double. This power difference likely contributes to the Intel part's ability to achieve competitive performance with lower cooling requirements. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1150, while the AMD part uses AMD Socket AM4, meaning they are not platform-compatible.

Manufacturing details differ in the Intel part's 22 nm process versus the AMD part's 28 nm process, with corresponding differences in transistor counts (1,400 million versus 3,100 million) and die sizes (177 mm² versus 250 mm²). The Intel part is built on Haswell architecture with the codename Haswell, while the AMD part uses Excavator architecture with the codename Bristol Ridge.

Cache configurations show the Intel part's per-core L1 and L2 allocations (64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively) plus 4 MB of shared L3, versus the AMD part's flat 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 with no L3. Memory support diverges between DDR3 and DDR4, with bandwidths of 25.6 GB/s and 38.4 GB/s respectively. PCIe lane counts differ at 16 for Intel and 8 for AMD, both on Gen 3. Integrated graphics are Intel HD 4600 versus Radeon R7.

The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $138, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part. Production status marks the Intel part as end-of-life and the AMD part as active. The Intel part released in March 2015, while the AMD part released in October 2016. The Intel part number is SR1TB, and the AMD part number is AD960BAGM44AB. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.

The Verdict

The benchmark data provides a clear picture: the Intel Core i3-4370T outperforms the AMD PRO A8-9600 in every recorded Cinebench test, though by margins that never exceed 1.3%. The Intel part wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with the closest result in Cinebench R15 multicore at 1.1% and the widest margins of 1.3% appearing in three separate tests.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in the Cinebench suite, the Intel Core i3-4370T is the stronger choice, despite having only half the physical core count. The Intel part's 35 W thermal design power also makes it more suitable for power-constrained or compact systems, where the AMD part's 65 W requirement would demand more substantial cooling. The Intel part's higher average benchmark score of 983 versus 971 reinforces this conclusion, albeit with both processors landing at the same 26th percentile overall.

However, the AMD PRO A8-9600 offers advantages that may matter for certain use cases. Its DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth represents a modern platform investment, and its 4 physical cores could theoretically benefit workloads that scale with core count rather than thread count, even though the Cinebench results do not show such an advantage. The AMD part also remains in active production, while the Intel part is end-of-life, meaning the AMD processor may be easier to source for new builds. The AMD part's active status and newer release date of October 2016 versus March 2015 suggest longer platform relevance.

Users building on a modern AM4 platform with DDR4 memory would find the AMD PRO A8-9600 more compatible with current motherboard ecosystems. Users with existing Socket 1150 DDR3 systems would find the Intel Core i3-4370T a direct drop-in option, though its end-of-life status limits long-term upgrade paths. The database shows the Intel part's nearest rivals are all older Intel Xeon and Core i7 parts, while the AMD part's nearest rivals include a mix of Intel and AMD processors, indicating the AMD part competes in a slightly different performance tier.

For Cinebench-specific workloads, the Intel Core i3-4370T is the winner across every metric. For users who value the AMD part's memory bandwidth, physical core count, or active production status, the AMD PRO A8-9600 presents a viable alternative, but the recorded data consistently favors Intel in compute performance.