AMD Athlon X4 760K vs Intel Core i3-3240 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two desktop processors, and the split favors the Intel Core i3-3240 in every recorded test. The AMD Athlon X4 760K does not win a single head-to-head benchmark in the database. The Intel part takes both available comparisons, which makes the use-case discussion straightforward: the i3-3240 is the stronger performer across the board in the measured workloads, while the Athlon X4 760K offers its own advantages in platform characteristics rather than raw benchmark scores.

The Geekbench multicore test shows the i3-3240 scoring 1233 against the Athlon's 1098, a delta of -10.9 percent for the AMD part. The Geekbench singlecore test shows an even larger gap, with the i3-3240 at 650 and the Athlon at 455, a delta of -30 percent. In both cases, the Intel processor leads by a margin that is not marginal in the single-core test. The multicore gap is moderate, but the single-core gap is substantial, which points to the i3-3240 being the better choice for workloads that depend on per-thread performance.

The Athlon X4 760K does have four physical cores and four threads, while the i3-3240 has two physical cores and four threads via Hyper-Threading. The AMD part also has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz that the Intel part lacks entirely. Yet the recorded benchmarks show the Intel part winning despite fewer physical cores and a lower base clock. This indicates that the Intel architecture, Ivy Bridge on a 22 nm process, extracts more performance per clock and per thread than the AMD Piledriver design on a 32 nm process.

The average benchmark scores place the two processors very close to each other overall. The Athlon X4 760K has an average benchmark score of 777, while the i3-3240 has an average of 761. This is a difference of only 16 points, roughly 2 percent, and it favors the AMD part. The percentile rankings are similarly close, with the Athlon at the 21st percentile of all CPUs and the Intel at the 20th. These aggregate numbers suggest that when averaged across a wider set of workloads, the two processors are nearly equivalent, even though the specific Geekbench comparisons favor Intel. The nearest rivals for the Athlon include the Intel Pentium G4520 at 778 (delta -0.1 percent), the AMD A10-5800K at 778 (delta -0.1 percent), the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 at 776 (delta 0.1 percent), and the Intel Celeron G5920 at 775 (delta 0.3 percent). The nearest rivals for the i3-3240 include the AMD A8-6600K at 764 (delta -0.3 percent), the Intel Core i5-3210M at 758 (delta 0.4 percent), the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757 (delta 0.5 percent), and the Intel Xeon E5450 at 756 (delta 0.6 percent). The rival sets show that both CPUs sit in a crowded performance band where many older desktop and mobile parts land within a few points of each other.

For workloads that are heavily multithreaded and scale with core count, the Athlon's four physical cores may be expected to help, but the Geekbench multicore result does not confirm that expectation. The i3-3240 leads by 10.9 percent in that test, which suggests that the Intel part's four threads, combined with its higher per-thread efficiency, overcome the Athlon's two additional physical cores. For workloads that are lightly threaded, the i3-3240's single-core advantage of 30 percent is decisive. The data shows no scenario in which the Athlon X4 760K wins a measured benchmark.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i3-3240 is the processor to choose if the priority is benchmark performance in the recorded tests. It wins both Geekbench multicore and Geekbench singlecore, with a 10.9 percent lead in the former and a 30 percent lead in the latter. The i3-3240 also carries an integrated graphics solution, the Intel HD 2500, which the Athlon X4 760K lacks entirely. That makes the Intel part a more complete package for a system without a discrete graphics card.

The Athlon X4 760K is the processor to choose if the priority is platform flexibility around overclocking. The multiplier is unlocked on the AMD part, while the Intel part has a locked multiplier. The Athlon also has a higher base clock and a boost clock, so out of the box it runs at higher frequencies, but the recorded data shows that this does not translate into benchmark wins. The Athlon's average benchmark score of 777 is slightly higher than the i3-3240's 761, so in aggregate terms the AMD part is marginally ahead, but the specific head-to-head tests all favor Intel.

For a user building a new system from these two options, the i3-3240 is the safer choice for general performance based on the data. It wins every measured comparison and offers integrated graphics, a lower TDP of 55 watts versus 100 watts, and a smaller die size of 94 mm² versus 246 mm². The Athlon X4 760K is end-of-life production status, while the Intel part has no recorded production status, and the AMD part's socket, FM2, is a platform that does not carry the same upgrade path as the Intel Socket 1155 in terms of the recorded data. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, so no price comparison is possible from the database.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical, 21st for the Athlon and 20th for the i3-3240, which means both processors sit in the same performance tier relative to all CPUs in the database. The verdict is therefore not about one being dramatically better or worse in overall standing, but about the specific tests where they diverge. In every measured test, the i3-3240 is ahead.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between the AMD Athlon X4 760K and the Intel Core i3-3240, both under the Geekbench test suite.

The first comparison is Geekbench multicore. The Athlon X4 760K scores 1098. The i3-3240 scores 1233. The winner is the Intel Core i3-3240 with a delta of -10.9 percent for the AMD part. This is the smaller of the two gaps, but it is still a clear lead for Intel. The result is notable because the Athlon has four physical cores and four threads, while the i3-3240 has two physical cores and four threads. The Intel part also has a lower base clock, 3.40 GHz versus 3.80 GHz, and no boost clock, while the Athlon boosts to 4.10 GHz. Despite these disadvantages on paper, the i3-3240 still delivers a higher multicore score. The architectural efficiency of Ivy Bridge on a 22 nm process appears to overcome the Athlon's higher clock speeds and additional physical cores.

The second comparison is Geekbench singlecore. The Athlon X4 760K scores 455. The i3-3240 scores 650. The winner is again the Intel Core i3-3240, with a delta of -30 percent for the AMD part. This is a substantial gap. A 30 percent deficit in single-core performance is significant for any workload that relies on a single thread, such as many older games or lightly threaded applications. The i3-3240's single-core score of 650 is more than 42 percent higher than the Athlon's 455 in absolute terms. The Athlon's higher clock speeds do not help here, which reinforces the conclusion that the Intel architecture delivers far more performance per clock cycle.

The i3-3240 also has additional benchmark records in the database that the Athlon does not have, including Cinebench R15 multicore at 201, Cinebench R20 multicore at 840, Cinebench R20 singlecore at 118, Cinebench R23 multicore at 2000, and Cinebench R23 singlecore at 282. These scores cannot be compared directly to the Athlon because the Athlon has no corresponding entries, but they provide context for the i3-3240's overall performance profile. The Athlon's only benchmark records are the two Geekbench scores, 1098 multicore and 455 singlecore.

The average benchmark score tells a different story at the aggregate level. The Athlon X4 760K averages 777, and the i3-3240 averages 761. The Athlon is actually ahead by 16 points, roughly 2 percent. This discrepancy between the head-to-head results and the average scores is explained by the fact that the average includes different benchmark sets for each processor. The i3-3240's average includes its five Cinebench scores, which may pull its average down relative to the Geekbench-only record for the Athlon. The nearest rival data confirms that both processors sit in a tight cluster, with the Athlon's rivals all within a delta of -0.1 to 0.3 percent of its average score, and the i3-3240's rivals all within a delta of -0.3 to 0.6 percent of its average.

The head-to-head data, however, is unambiguous: Intel wins both recorded comparisons, with the single-core gap being the more decisive of the two.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Geekbench multicore score?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 scores 1233 in Geekbench multicore, while the AMD Athlon X4 760K scores 1098. The i3-3240 leads by 10.9 percent.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap between the two?

A: In Geekbench singlecore, the i3-3240 scores 650 and the Athlon X4 760K scores 455. The Athlon trails by 30 percent, which is a substantial margin.

Q: Does the Athlon X4 760K have more physical cores?

A: Yes, the Athlon X4 760K has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-3240 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite this, the i3-3240 wins both Geekbench tests.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Athlon X4 760K has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The i3-3240 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 includes Intel HD 2500 integrated graphics. The AMD Athlon X4 760K has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Athlon X4 760K has an average benchmark score of 777, and the i3-3240 has an average of 761. The Athlon is slightly ahead by 16 points, despite losing both head-to-head Geekbench tests.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Athlon X4 760K and the Intel Core i3-3240 come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Athlon uses AMD's Piledriver architecture under the Richland codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The i3-3240 uses Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is notable: 32 nm versus 22 nm, which contributes to the Intel part's lower TDP of 55 watts against the AMD part's 100 watts.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect the different approaches. The Athlon X4 760K has 1,303 million transistors on a die size of 246 mm². The i3-3240 does not have a recorded transistor count, but its die size is 94 mm². The AMD die is more than 2.5 times larger, yet the Intel die delivers higher benchmark scores in the recorded tests.

The cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Athlon has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache. The i3-3240 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part's L3 cache is a meaningful addition, as the Athlon has no L3 at all. This cache architecture likely contributes to the i3-3240's superior single-core performance.

The memory support is similar in type, with both processors supporting DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Athlon has a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the i3-3240 does not have a recorded memory bandwidth figure. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The PCI Express support differs: the Athlon uses Gen 2, while the i3-3240 uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU.

The sockets are completely different. The Athlon uses AMD Socket FM2, while the i3-3240 uses Intel Socket 1155. These are not interchangeable platforms. The Athlon has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclocking-friendly, while the i3-3240 has a locked multiplier and no boost clock. The i3-3240 includes Intel HD 2500 integrated graphics, while the Athlon has no integrated graphics listed.

The release dates are close, with the Athlon released on 2013-05-31 and the i3-3240 released on 2012-09-02. The Athlon is marked as end-of-life production status, while the i3-3240 has no recorded production status. The Athlon's part number is AD760KWOHLBOXAD760KWOA44HL, and the i3-3240's part number is SR0RH.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

The AMD Athlon X4 760K has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core i3-3240 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The base clock differs: 3.80 GHz for the Athlon versus 3.40 GHz for the i3-3240. The Athlon has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while the i3-3240 has no boost clock. The TDP differs substantially: 100 watts for the Athlon versus 55 watts for the i3-3240.

The sockets are different: AMD Socket FM2 for the Athlon versus Intel Socket 1155 for the i3-3240. The architectures are different: Piledriver for the Athlon versus Ivy Bridge for the i3-3240. The codenames are Richland for the Athlon and Ivy Bridge for the i3-3240. The process nodes differ: 32 nm for the Athlon versus 22 nm for the i3-3240. The foundries are GlobalFoundries for the AMD part and Intel for the Intel part.

The cache configurations differ. The Athlon has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache. The i3-3240 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Athlon at 29.9 GB/s; the i3-3240 has no recorded memory bandwidth. The PCIe support differs: Gen 2 for the Athlon versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the i3-3240. The i3-3240 includes Intel HD 2500 integrated graphics, while the Athlon has none.

The multiplier is unlocked on the Athlon and locked on the i3-3240. The release dates differ: 2013-05-31 for the Athlon versus 2012-09-02 for the i3-3240. The production status is recorded as end-of-life for the Athlon, with no status recorded for the i3-3240. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP. The part numbers are AD760KWOHLBOXAD760KWOA44HL for the Athlon and SR0RH for the i3-3240.