AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 vs Intel Core i5-10600K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is remarkably one-sided. Across six Cinebench comparisons, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 wins every single test, with deltas clustering tightly around 3.2%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 1259 against Intel's 1220, a 3.2% lead. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 177 versus 172, a 2.9% advantage for AMD. This pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (5246 vs 5084, 3.2%), R20 single-core (740 vs 717, 3.2%), R23 multi-core (12491 vs 12106, 3.2%), and R23 single-core (1763 vs 1709, 3.2%). The consistency of the delta across generations of the Cinebench suite is notable: it suggests a stable performance gap that does not widen or narrow with workload scaling, at least within this benchmark family.

The Intel Core i5-10600K does not record a single win in the direct comparison. However, the database also contains additional benchmark data for the Intel part that has no AMD counterpart in this listing. The i5-10600K posts 3DMark scores of 5378 with 16 threads, 5377 with max threads, 4504 with 8 threads, 2970 with 4 threads, 1553 with 2 threads, and 799 single-thread. Its Geekbench results are 6393 multi-core and 1477 single-core. Those figures are not part of the head-to-head matrix, so they cannot be directly compared, but they do indicate that the Intel part's overall benchmark footprint extends beyond Cinebench. The AMD part's average benchmark score, based on its Cinebench results, is 3613. The Intel part's average, which includes the 3DMark and Geekbench runs, is 3533. That places the AMD part slightly ahead in average score, but the difference is small, roughly 2.3% when calculated from those two averages. Both processors sit at the 55th percentile against all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same tier in the overall distribution.

The largest gap in the direct comparisons is 3.2%, and it appears in four of the six tests. The two single-core R15 tests show a 2.9% gap, which is the narrowest margin recorded. This is an interesting inversion of expectations: the Intel part has a much higher base clock (4.10 GHz versus 3.00 GHz) and boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 3.70 GHz), yet it still trails in single-core Cinebench. The data suggests that the AMD Zen architecture's per-core efficiency, combined with its higher core count, offsets the clock speed disadvantage. In multi-core tests, the AMD part's 8 cores and 16 threads versus Intel's 6 cores and 12 threads provide a structural advantage. The 3.2% delta is smaller than the core-count difference might imply, but the AMD part wins nonetheless. The single-core results are more revealing: with a 0.7 GHz lower boost clock, the AMD part still manages a 2.9% to 3.2% lead, which points to a meaningful IPC (instructions per clock) advantage in this workload.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded head-to-head data, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 is the better performer in Cinebench across the board. It wins all six comparisons, with margins between 2.9% and 3.2%. If the primary use case is rendering or any workload that scales with Cinebench-style multi-threaded performance, the AMD part is the clear choice. Its 8-core, 16-thread configuration delivers 12491 in R23 multi-core versus 12106 for the Intel part. The single-core wins are arguably more significant, because they show that the AMD part is not merely winning on core count: it is also faster per thread. A 3.2% lead in R23 single-core (1763 vs 1709) means that even lightly threaded applications will see a slight edge on the AMD platform.

The Intel Core i5-10600K is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the head-to-head tests. The database shows it has a robust 3DMark profile, with a max-thread score of 5377 and a single-thread score of 799. It also has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), which the AMD part lacks entirely. For a system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, that is a decisive feature. The Intel part also has a higher average benchmark score if you include its full benchmark suite, but the head-to-head Cinebench results are unambiguous. The verdict for most users should be: pick the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 for raw compute performance in Cinebench-class workloads. Pick the Intel Core i5-10600K only if you need integrated graphics or if your workload is represented by the 3DMark and Geekbench metrics, where the Intel part has recorded data. The percentile ranking is identical at 55, so neither part is in a higher overall tier, but the direct comparison favors AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design eras and philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Summit Ridge, and belongs to the 1000 series. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. Its TDP is 65 watts. The cache layout is generous: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The socket is AMD Socket AM4, and the platform provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The multiplier is unlocked, and the part is still listed as active in production.

The Intel Core i5-10600K is a Comet Lake part from the Core 10th Gen family. It is also on a 14 nm process, but fabricated at Intel. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its TDP is 125 watts, nearly double the AMD part's 65 watts. The cache is smaller: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. It also supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with the same 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, but it does not support ECC memory. It uses Intel Socket 1200 and provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. It includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 630, which the AMD part does not have. The multiplier is unlocked. The release dates differ: the AMD part launched in June 2017, while the Intel part launched in April 2020.

The process node is identical at 14 nm, but the transistor counts and die sizes are not directly comparable because the Intel part does not have those figures listed. The core and thread counts favor AMD decisively: 8/16 versus 6/12. The clock speeds favor Intel decisively: 4.10/4.80 GHz versus 3.00/3.70 GHz. The TDP difference is large, with Intel drawing 125 watts versus AMD's 65 watts, which has implications for cooling and power delivery, but those are not benchmark scores. The L3 cache is larger on the AMD part (16 MB versus 12 MB), and the L1 and L2 per-core caches are also larger. ECC support is exclusive to AMD. Integrated graphics are exclusive to Intel. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results: AMD's higher core count and larger cache help in multi-threaded and sustained workloads, while Intel's higher clocks are not enough to overcome the per-core efficiency deficit seen in the Cinebench results.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 wins every multi-core Cinebench test. It scores 1259 in R15, 5246 in R20, and 12491 in R23, versus 1220, 5084, and 12106 for the Intel Core i5-10600K. The margin is 3.2% in each test.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-10600K win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Intel part loses all six Cinebench tests. The AMD part wins all six, with deltas between 2.9% and 3.2%.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core i5-10600K has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD part has two more cores and four more threads.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. Both support DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. However, the AMD part supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i5-10600K has integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 630. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 does not list any integrated graphics.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has an average benchmark score of 3613. The Intel Core i5-10600K has an average of 3533. Both sit at the 55th percentile against all CPUs in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 wins in every Cinebench workload, both multi-core and single-core. That is the entirety of the head-to-head data. For users running CPU-bound rendering, video encoding, or scientific computing that mirrors Cinebench's workload, the AMD part is the better choice. Its 8-core, 16-thread design, combined with a 3.2% lead in multi-core tests, gives it a consistent edge. The single-core wins are also important: a 3.2% lead in R23 single-core (1763 vs 1709) means the AMD part is not just a multi-threaded brute, it is also faster on lightly threaded tasks. The larger L3 cache (16 MB versus 12 MB) and ECC memory support further tilt the balance toward AMD for workstation-class tasks. The lower TDP of 65 watts versus 125 watts is another point in favor, though the data does not include thermal or power measurements.

The Intel Core i5-10600K wins in areas outside the direct comparison. It has integrated graphics, so it can drive a display without a discrete GPU. The AMD part cannot. It also has a higher base clock (4.10 GHz versus 3.00 GHz) and boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 3.70 GHz), which could benefit workloads that are not represented in the Cinebench tests. Its 3DMark results are recorded in the database: 5378 with 16 threads, 5377 with max threads, and 799 single-thread. Those scores suggest strong performance in gaming or GPU-adjacent workloads, but there is no AMD equivalent to compare them against. The Geekbench multi-core score of 6393 and single-core score of 1477 are also listed, indicating a different performance profile. For users who prioritize gaming, integrated graphics, or the specific workloads captured by 3DMark and Geekbench, the Intel part has recorded strengths. For users who prioritize Cinebench-class compute, the AMD part is the winner. The data does not support a conclusion that the Intel part is faster anywhere in the head-to-head matrix, so any choice in its favor must rely on features or benchmarks that were not directly compared.