AMD PRO A8-9600 vs Intel Core i5-5257U Comparison

# Intel Core i5-5257U vs AMD PRO A8-9600

The Intel Core i5-5257U and AMD PRO A8-9600 are two processors from different eras and market segments, yet they land in the same performance percentile. The i5-5257U is a 2015 mobile Broadwell chip with a 28W TDP, while the PRO A8-9600 is a 2016 desktop Bristol Ridge part with a 65W TDP. Despite the AMD chip having twice the physical cores, a more recent release, and a higher thermal envelope, the benchmark data shows a surprisingly narrow gap between them—the AMD part wins all five head-to-head tests, but by margins that hover around 15% rather than the blowout one might expect. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the i5-5257U scores 976, and the PRO A8-9600 scores 971, placing both at the 26th percentile of all CPUs. This raises an immediate question: how does a 14nm dual-core mobile chip stay within striking distance of a 28nm quad-core desktop part?

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-5257U has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 976, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 scores 971—a difference of only 0.5%, putting both at the 26th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How does the AMD PRO A8-9600 perform in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 scores 2820 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 14.7% higher than the Intel Core i5-5257U's score of 2406 in the same test.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-5257U has a TDP of 28W, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 has a TDP of 65W—a 37W difference that reflects the Intel's mobile design versus the AMD's desktop orientation.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: Only the AMD PRO A8-9600 supports DDR4 memory, with dual-channel support and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s; the Intel Core i5-5257U is limited to DDR3 with dual-channel support and a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare in Cinebench R20?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 scores 167 in Cinebench R20 single-core, which is 15% higher than the Intel Core i5-5257U's score of 142.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-5257U is marked as end-of-life, while the AMD PRO A8-9600 is listed as active production.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Intel Core i5-5257U is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-U codename, manufactured on a 14nm process at Intel's foundry. The AMD PRO A8-9600 uses the Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename, fabricated on a 28nm process by GlobalFoundries. This process node difference is substantial: Intel's 14nm process allows for a die size of just 133 mm² with 1,900 million transistors, while AMD's 28nm node results in a much larger 250 mm² die containing 3,100 million transistors.

Core configuration is another major divergence. The Intel part offers 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the AMD part provides 4 physical cores with 4 threads—no simultaneous multithreading. This means the AMD chip relies on raw core count, whereas the Intel chip uses thread duplication to improve throughput. Cache hierarchies also differ: the i5-5257U has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The PRO A8-9600 has a total of 320 KB L1 cache and 2 MB L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all—a significant structural difference that likely impacts latency-sensitive workloads.

Memory support further separates them. The Intel chip uses DDR3 in dual-channel mode with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD chip uses DDR4 in dual-channel mode with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe capabilities also differ: the i5-5257U supports Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only), whereas the PRO A8-9600 supports Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are present on both, with Intel Iris 6100 on the i5-5257U and Radeon R7 on the PRO A8-9600, though the benchmark data does not cover graphics performance. The Intel chip uses an Intel BGA 1168 socket and is mobile-focused, while the AMD chip uses Socket AM4 and is desktop-focused, with the AMD part also being actively produced and the Intel part end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a consistent pattern: the AMD PRO A8-9600 wins every single test, but by a nearly uniform margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 284 versus the Intel's 242, a delta of -14.8% (where the negative sign indicates the Intel trails). Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1184 for AMD against 1010 for Intel, again a 14.7% difference. The R20 single-core test has AMD at 167 and Intel at 142, a 15% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the trend with AMD at 2820 and Intel at 2406 (14.7% behind), and R23 single-core shows AMD at 398 versus Intel's 339 (14.8% behind).

What is striking is the uniformity of these deltas. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the AMD advantage stays pinned between 14.7% and 15%. This suggests the performance difference is not about core count scaling or frequency—it is likely a fundamental per-clock efficiency gap that manifests equally across all workloads. The AMD chip has higher base and boost clocks (3.10 GHz base, 3.40 GHz boost) compared to the Intel (2.70 GHz base, 3.10 GHz boost), and that clock advantage, combined with four physical cores, appears to translate into a steady 15% lead. However, the Intel chip's smaller process node and lower TDP hint that the raw performance per watt heavily favors the Intel part, though the data does not provide direct power efficiency metrics.

The i5-5257U does have one benchmark not shared by the PRO A8-9600: Geekbench multi-core (1773) and single-core (922). Since the AMD chip lacks Geekbench results in the data, no direct comparison is possible, but the Intel's Geekbench scores are consistent with its Cinebench positioning relative to its nearest rivals.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal several fields where the two processors differ. Core count is the most obvious: 2 cores on the Intel versus 4 on the AMD. Threads are equal at 4 each. Base clock differs, with Intel at 2.70 GHz and AMD at 3.10 GHz. Boost clock also differs, with Intel at 3.10 GHz and AMD at 3.40 GHz. TDP is a major differentiator: 28W for Intel versus 65W for AMD.

Socket and architecture are entirely different: Intel BGA 1168 with Broadwell, AMD Socket AM4 with Excavator. Process node shows 14nm for Intel and 28nm for AMD. Transistor count and die size differ (1,900 million transistors on 133 mm² versus 3,100 million on 250 mm²). Cache layout diverges: Intel has 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core with 3 MB shared L3, while AMD has 320 KB total L1 and 2 MB L2 with no L3. Memory support differs (DDR3 versus DDR4), as does memory bandwidth (29.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s). PCIe generation and lane count differ (Gen 2, 12 lanes versus Gen 3, 8 lanes). Integrated graphics are Intel Iris 6100 versus Radeon R7. Market segment is Mobile versus Desktop. Production status is End-of-life versus Active. Release dates differ (2015-02-28 versus 2016-10-02). The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $315; the AMD part has no launch MSRP listed. Part numbers differ (SR26K versus AD960BAGM44AB). Both have ECC memory disabled and locked multipliers.

Fields that are the same include DDR3/DDR4 dual-channel memory bus, ECC support (false for both), and unlocked multiplier status (false for both).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins across all five head-to-head benchmarks, making it the clear performance leader in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The margins are consistent at around 15%, which means the AMD chip is meaningfully faster in every measured scenario. For tasks like Cinebench rendering—whether at R15, R20, or R23—the PRO A8-9600 delivers higher scores, making it the better choice for CPU-bound productivity work where absolute performance matters more than power draw.

The Intel Core i5-5257U does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it has advantages in other dimensions. Its 28W TDP versus the AMD's 65W TDP suggests it is far more power-efficient, which is critical for mobile or thermally constrained environments. The Intel chip also has a smaller die size (133 mm² versus 250 mm²) and a more advanced 14nm process, which typically correlates with lower power consumption and heat output. Additionally, the Intel part has a higher average benchmark score (976 versus 971) and a better nearest-rival delta against the AMD A10-7870K (0.1% versus -0.4%), indicating slightly better positioning relative to comparable CPUs. The Intel chip also features more PCIe lanes (12 versus 8), though at Gen 2 speeds rather than Gen 3.

For integrated graphics, the Intel Iris 6100 is generally considered a stronger iGPU than the Radeon R7 in the AMD part, though no benchmark data is provided to substantiate this claim—so it remains a qualitative observation based on the naming alone.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the AMD PRO A8-9600 is faster in every benchmark where both chips are measured. If the priority is raw compute throughput—whether single-threaded or multi-threaded—the AMD chip delivers a consistent 15% advantage. This makes it the sensible pick for desktop users who need maximum CPU performance from a Socket AM4 platform and are willing to accept a 65W TDP.

The Intel Core i5-5257U, despite losing every head-to-head test, is not without merit. Its 28W TDP, 14nm process, and mobile BGA 1168 socket indicate it was designed for laptops and compact systems where power efficiency is paramount. Its average benchmark score of 976 is marginally higher than the AMD's 971, which suggests that in aggregate, the Intel chip punches above its weight given its lower core count and clock speeds. The Intel part also has the advantage of being end-of-life but historically sold at a launch MSRP of $315, which positions it as a premium mobile part of its era.

The verdict depends on the use case. For a desktop build where performance is the sole criterion, the AMD PRO A8-9600 is the straightforward choice—it wins all five head-to-head benchmarks and offers DDR4 support and a larger core count. For a mobile or low-power system, the Intel Core i5-5257U is the only viable option given its socket and TDP, and the data shows it is not far behind despite its smaller core count. The 15% performance gap is real but not overwhelming, especially considering the Intel chip's significantly lower thermal envelope. The fact that both processors sit at the 26th percentile of all CPUs, with nearly identical average scores, tells the real story: these are similarly capable parts from different design philosophies, and the choice should hinge on platform and power requirements rather than raw performance alone.