AMD A10-7860K vs AMD FX-4320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, if modest, advantage for the AMD A10-7860K across every Cinebench test in the comparison set. The FX-4320 does not win a single head-to-head benchmark; the A10-7860K takes all five. The margins are remarkably uniform, hovering around 3.6% to 3.7% in favor of the A10-7860K.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the A10-7860K scores 279 against the FX-4320’s 269, a 3.6% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows the same pattern: 1166 for the A10-7860K versus 1124 for the FX-4320, again a 3.6% gap. Single-core results tell the same story. In R20 single-core, the A10-7860K posts 164, while the FX-4320 manages 158, a 3.7% advantage. R23 single-core sees the A10-7860K at 392 and the FX-4320 at 378, a 3.6% edge.

The largest relative difference appears in R20 single-core, but at 3.7% it is barely distinguishable from the multi-core deltas. This consistency suggests the performance gap is systemic rather than workload-specific. The A10-7860K’s average benchmark score of 904 is slightly lower than the FX-4320’s 921, but that average includes Geekbench results that favor the FX-4320’s overall profile. The head-to-head Cinebench set, however, is unambiguous: five wins for the A10-7860K, zero for the FX-4320.

What does a 3.6% margin mean in practice? For a single-threaded task like R23 single-core, 378 versus 392 points is the difference between a responsive desktop and a slightly snappier one. For multi-threaded rendering, 2677 versus 2778 points translates to a few seconds saved per minute of render time. Neither chip is a powerhouse by modern standards, but the A10-7860K is consistently the stronger of the two in these tests.

Where Each One Wins

The A10-7860K wins every benchmark where both chips were tested head-to-head. That includes all five Cinebench iterations: R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. If your workload relies on Cinebench-style rendering or single-threaded responsiveness, the A10-7860K is the pick from the data.

The FX-4320 has no head-to-head wins, but it is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 921 is higher than the A10-7860K’s 904. That average is computed across a broader set of tests, including Geekbench multi-core and single-core, which the A10-7860K has recorded but the FX-4320 lacks in the head-to-head table. The FX-4320 also sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, one point above the A10-7860K’s 24th percentile. In the database’s overall rankings, the FX-4320 is marginally better positioned relative to the entire CPU landscape.

Practically, this means the FX-4320 may edge out the A10-7860K in mixed workloads that are not dominated by Cinebench. The Geekbench multi-core score of 1103 for the A10-7860K, when averaged with its other results, pulls its overall average down. The FX-4320’s average of 921 is buoyed by its own benchmark profile. If you are looking at raw aggregate performance across many test types, the FX-4320 looks slightly better. If you are rendering or running single-threaded tasks, the A10-7860K is the winner.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different AMD families and use different sockets. The FX-4320 is a Piledriver-based Vishera part, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It uses the AMD Socket AM3+ platform. The A10-7860K is a Steamroller-based Godaveri part, built on a 28 nm process, also at GlobalFoundries, but it fits the AMD Socket FM2+.

The FX-4320 has a larger die at 315 mm² but fewer transistors, 1,200 million. The A10-7860K has a smaller die at 245 mm² but nearly double the transistor count at 2,411 million. The 28 nm node allows more transistors in a smaller area, which explains the density difference. The A10-7860K also includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, while the FX-4320 relies on a chipset feature that enables graphics only on certain motherboards. That is a significant functional difference: the A10-7860K is an APU, the FX-4320 is a pure CPU with optional onboard graphics depending on the board.

Cache layouts differ as well. The FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2, plus a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The A10-7860K has 256 KB of L1 and 4 MB of L2, but no L3 cache at all. The lack of L3 is offset by the larger L1 and the newer Steamroller core design, which appears to compensate in the benchmark results. Memory bandwidth favors the A10-7860K at 34.1 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s for the FX-4320, though both use dual-channel DDR3. PCIe support also differs: the FX-4320 is Gen 2, while the A10-7860K offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Clock speeds favor the FX-4320 on paper. It has a 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, versus 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost for the A10-7860K. Despite the lower clocks, the A10-7860K wins every Cinebench test, indicating the Steamroller architecture is more efficient per clock than Piledriver. The TDP difference is stark: the FX-4320 draws 95 W, while the A10-7860K is rated at 65 W. Both have unlocked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher clock speed?

A: The FX-4320 has a 4.00 GHz base clock and 4.20 GHz boost clock. The A10-7860K has a 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost.

Q: Does the A10-7860K include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it has Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The FX-4320 does not have integrated graphics on the CPU; it relies on a chipset feature that works only on certain motherboards.

Q: Which chip is more power efficient?

A: The A10-7860K has a TDP of 65 W, while the FX-4320 has a TDP of 95 W. The A10-7860K delivers better Cinebench scores while drawing less power according to the specifications.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same socket?

A: No. The FX-4320 uses AMD Socket AM3+, while the A10-7860K uses AMD Socket FM2+. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which CPU has L3 cache?

A: Only the FX-4320 has L3 cache, with 4 MB shared. The A10-7860K has no L3 cache, but it has more L1 cache (256 KB versus 192 KB) and the same 4 MB of L2.

Q: Is the A10-7860K faster in all Cinebench tests?

A: Yes, in the head-to-head results, the A10-7860K wins all five Cinebench tests: R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The margins range from 3.6% to 3.7%.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD A10-7860K as the better performer in the tested workloads. It wins every head-to-head Cinebench benchmark, despite having lower clock speeds and no L3 cache. Its 65 W TDP makes it more power-efficient than the FX-4320’s 95 W, and it includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which the FX-4320 lacks. For anyone building a system around these two chips, the A10-7860K offers superior rendering performance, better single-threaded scores, and a lower power draw.

The FX-4320 is not entirely without appeal. Its average benchmark score of 921 is higher than the A10-7860K’s 904, and it sits at the 25th percentile versus the 24th. It has a shared 4 MB L3 cache and higher base and boost clocks. If your workload is not Cinebench-centric and you have a motherboard with the right chipset for integrated graphics, the FX-4320’s aggregate score suggests it may hold its own in mixed tasks. But the head-to-head record is decisive: five wins for the A10-7860K, zero for the FX-4320.

Pick the A10-7860K if you want the better all-around CPU for rendering, single-threaded responsiveness, and lower power consumption, and if you can use its integrated graphics. Pick the FX-4320 if you already have an AM3+ motherboard, need the L3 cache, or your workload matches the tests that boost its average score. The A10-7860K is the safer choice from the recorded data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FX-4320 | AMD A10-7860K |

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

| Architecture | Piledriver | Steamroller |

| Codename | Vishera | Godaveri |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ | AMD Socket FM2+ |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,200 million | 2,411 million |

| Die Size | 315 mm² | 245 mm² |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 65 W |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 29.9 GB/s | 34.1 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Radeon R7 |

| Release Date | 2012-10-22 | 2016-02-01 |

| Part Number | FD4320WMW4KHK | AD786KYBJABOXAD786KYBJCSBXAD786KYBI44JC |