CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-6300 and AMD PRO A8-9600 are both active desktop processors aimed at entry-level systems, yet the benchmark data reveals a remarkably consistent performance gap. Across every single Cinebench test recorded, the Intel part finishes ahead, with the margin hovering just under 20 percent in all cases. With the Core i3-6300 holding a 26th percentile ranking among all CPUs and the PRO A8-9600 matching that exact percentile, the two are positioned in the same performance tier on average, but the distribution of scores within that tier is clearly lopsided. The Intel chip’s average benchmark score of 978 versus AMD’s 971 reflects a slim overall edge, but the head-to-head deltas tell a more decisive story for specific workloads. This analysis breaks down where each processor wins, the architectural reasons behind the results, and who should buy which based strictly on the measured data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the uniformity of Intel’s victory. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the Core i3-6300 scores 340 against the PRO A8-9600’s 284, a 19.7 percent advantage. That same multicore gap carries over to Cinebench R20, where Intel posts 1419 versus AMD’s 1184, a 19.8 percent lead. The R23 multicore run shows 3380 for Intel and 2820 for AMD, a 19.9 percent delta, the largest margin of any test. These are not narrow wins; they represent a consistent throughput advantage that holds across different versions of the same rendering workload.

Single-core performance tells the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core i3-6300 scores 200, while the PRO A8-9600 manages 167, a 19.8 percent difference. The R23 single-core test shows 477 versus 398, again a 19.8 percent gap. The fact that the delta is nearly identical across both multicore and single-core tests suggests the advantage is not dependent on thread scaling but is rooted in the fundamental per-clock efficiency of the two architectures. Intel wins all five recorded head-to-head benchmarks, and the AMD part fails to take a single test.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores for the two CPUs are much closer than the head-to-head results: 978 for Intel versus 971 for AMD, a difference of less than one percent. This apparent contradiction is explained by the nearest rival data. The Core i3-6300’s closest competitors include the Intel Core i5-5257U with an average score of 976 (0.2 percent delta) and the Core i3-4130 at 975 (0.3 percent). The AMD PRO A8-9600, meanwhile, sits near the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130, both at 975, with deltas of -0.4 percent. So while the head-to-head Cinebench suite shows a clear Intel advantage, the broader benchmark aggregation places both chips in the same neighborhood as several older and lower-power parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-6300 is built on the Skylake architecture using a 14 nm process at Intel’s foundry. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 150 mm² die. The AMD PRO A8-9600, by contrast, uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors spread across a 250 mm² die. The process node difference alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap: Intel’s smaller 14 nm node allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, while AMD’s larger 28 nm node requires more silicon and more power to achieve lower results.

Core counts also differ sharply. The Intel chip has 2 cores and 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to handle four concurrent threads. The AMD part has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no SMT equivalent. Despite having twice the physical core count, the AMD processor still loses in every multicore benchmark, which underscores how much architectural efficiency matters over raw core quantity. The cache hierarchy reinforces this. Intel provides 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 4 MB of shared L3 cache. AMD’s design offers 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 total, with no L3 cache at all. The missing L3 cache on the AMD side is a major handicap for workloads that benefit from shared data across cores.

Memory support is similar on paper, both support DDR4 with dual-channel memory, but the bandwidth figures differ. Intel lists 34.1 GB/s, while AMD lists 38.4 GB/s. That higher theoretical bandwidth does not translate into better benchmark results, suggesting that the memory controller efficiency or the CPU’s ability to utilize bandwidth is stronger on the Intel side. PCIe connectivity also favors Intel: the Core i3-6300 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 offers Gen 3 with only 8 lanes. For discrete GPU workloads, that difference could matter, though the integrated graphics options, Intel HD 530 for Intel and Radeon R7 for AMD, are both present and active.

The clock speed story is straightforward. Intel runs at a fixed 3.80 GHz base clock with no boost. AMD runs at 3.10 GHz base and boosts to 3.40 GHz. Even with boost, the AMD chip’s maximum frequency is 0.40 GHz lower than Intel’s constant clock. Combined with the architectural efficiency gap, this explains the near-20 percent performance deficit. Both processors are socket-specific: Intel uses Socket 1151, while AMD uses Socket AM4. The AMD part has a higher TDP at 65 watts versus Intel’s 51 watts, meaning it consumes more power for lower performance.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i3-6300 wins everywhere that Cinebench measures. In multicore rendering, the 19.7 to 19.9 percent advantage across R15, R20, and R23 means this chip is the clear choice for any CPU-bound creative workload. The single-core results, with 19.8 percent leads in both R20 and R23, indicate that the Intel part also excels at lightly threaded tasks where per-core performance is king. For users running older software that relies on one or two threads, the Core i3-6300’s 3.80 GHz fixed clock and superior IPC will deliver noticeably faster response times.

The AMD PRO A8-9600 does not win any recorded benchmark, but that does not mean it lacks a rationale. Its 4 physical cores and 4 threads, while slower per core, may offer better raw multi-threading capacity for certain workloads that do not scale well with Intel’s 2-core/4-thread design. The data does not include such tests, so this remains speculative. However, the AMD part’s higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s could theoretically benefit memory-heavy tasks, even if the Cinebench suite does not show it. The Radeon R7 integrated graphics may also appeal to users who need a basic display output without a discrete GPU, though the Intel HD 530 is also present on the Intel side.

The nearest rival data hints at where each chip fits in the broader market. The Core i3-6300 is bracketed by the Intel Core i5-5257U and Core i3-4130, all within 0.3 percent of each other. The PRO A8-9600 sits near the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130, with the AMD part trailing those by 0.4 percent. This means the PRO A8-9600 is effectively competing with CPUs from several years earlier, while the Core i3-6300 is competitive with newer low-power parts. For a user prioritizing the best Cinebench scores, the Intel chip is the only choice.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-6300 outperforms the AMD PRO A8-9600 in every single benchmark recorded, with margins between 19.7 and 19.9 percent. The Intel chip wins 5 out of 5 head-to-head tests, and the AMD part wins 0. The architectural advantages, 14 nm versus 28 nm, 4 MB of L3 cache versus none, and a 3.80 GHz clock versus a 3.40 GHz boost, all point in the same direction. For anyone buying a desktop CPU for Cinebench-style rendering or general productivity, the Core i3-6300 is the superior part based strictly on the numbers.

The AMD PRO A8-9600 is not without merit, but its merits are not visible in the benchmark data. It offers 4 physical cores and higher memory bandwidth, yet these do not compensate for its architectural and clock speed disadvantages. Its average benchmark score of 971 is only 7 points below the Intel chip’s 978, but that average includes a broader set of tests than the head-to-head suite. In the tests that matter for this comparison, the Intel part is consistently ahead by a firm margin.

For a buyer who must choose between these two specific processors, the verdict is simple: pick the Intel Core i3-6300 if benchmark performance is the priority. Pick the AMD PRO A8-9600 only if you require its specific socket, its 4 physical cores, or its higher memory bandwidth for purposes not covered by the Cinebench data. The percentile ranking is identical at 26 for both, but that ranking masks the fact that the Intel chip delivers near-20 percent better performance in the tests where they are directly compared. The Core i3-6300 is the faster processor, and the data says so clearly.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i3-6300 wins with a score of 3380, beating the AMD PRO A8-9600’s 2820 by 19.9 percent.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R20?

A: The Intel Core i3-6300 scores 200, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 scores 167, giving Intel a 19.8 percent advantage.

Q: Do the two CPUs have the same average benchmark score?

A: No. The Intel Core i3-6300 has an average benchmark score of 978, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 averages 971, a difference of 7 points.

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

A: The Intel Core i3-6300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD PRO A8-9600 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-6300 runs at 3.80 GHz base. The AMD PRO A8-9600 runs at 3.10 GHz base and boosts to 3.40 GHz.

Q: How does the cache configuration differ between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-6300 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 has no L3 cache, only 2 MB of L2.