AMD Athlon X4 860K vs AMD FX-4320 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split in this comparison is unusually one-sided. The AMD Athlon X4 860K wins every single head-to-head test recorded in the database, five out of five. The AMD FX-4320 does not record a single win across any of the Cinebench workloads, whether single-core or multi-core. This makes the Athlon the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw application performance, especially in threaded workloads where its lead is consistent.

For the FX-4320, the story is not about winning benchmarks but about platform positioning. It is built for AMD Socket AM3+ motherboards, which is a legacy platform with a different upgrade path compared to the FM2+ socket used by the Athlon X4 860K. If a user already owns an AM3+ board, the FX-4320 is the drop-in option, but the data shows it will trail the Athlon in every measured Cinebench scenario.

In terms of where each part excels, the Athlon X4 860K is the superior performer for everyday computing, content creation, and any task that scales with multi-core throughput. Its wins range from 8.0% to 8.5% across the Cinebench suite, which is a meaningful margin for CPUs in this class. The FX-4320, meanwhile, offers the same core and thread count but at lower clock speeds, and the benchmarks reflect that disadvantage consistently.

The FX-4320 does retain one practical advantage: it supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus, just like the Athlon, but its memory bandwidth is rated lower at 29.9 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s for the Athlon. That bandwidth difference likely contributes to the Athlon's multi-core wins, as more data can flow to the cores under load. For users who already have DDR3 modules and an AM3+ board, the FX-4320 remains a functional choice, but it is not the faster one.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from different AMD generations, and the architectural gap explains the benchmark results. The FX-4320 is based on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Athlon X4 860K uses the Steamroller architecture, codenamed Kaveri, built on a 28 nm process, also at GlobalFoundries. The newer process node gives the Athlon a denser, more efficient design, which shows up in its higher benchmark scores despite the FX-4320 having a higher base clock.

The FX-4320 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Athlon X4 860K has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Even though the FX-4320 clocks higher, the Athlon still wins every benchmark, which indicates that Steamroller's per-clock efficiency is superior to Piledriver's. The architectural improvements in Steamroller allow the Athlon to outperform the FX-4320 despite running at lower clock speeds.

Cache configurations also differ. The FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 4 MB of L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Athlon X4 860K has 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, but no L3 cache at all. The FX-4320's L3 cache is a notable feature, as it can help with certain workloads that benefit from larger shared pools, but the Athlon's smaller die and newer architecture compensate for the missing L3. The FX-4320's die size is 315 mm² with 1,200 million transistors, while the Athlon is 245 mm² with 2,411 million transistors. The Athlon packs more than twice the transistors into a smaller die, which reflects the denser 28 nm process.

The platforms differ at the PCIe level as well. The FX-4320 supports PCIe Gen 2, while the Athlon X4 860K supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU. This gives the Athlon a more modern I/O interface, which can matter for GPU performance in gaming or compute tasks. Both parts have unlocked multipliers, so overclocking is possible on either, but the Athlon's architectural efficiency gives it a better starting point.

The FX-4320 also lists integrated graphics as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, while the Athlon X4 860K has no integrated graphics listed. This is a minor distinction, as neither CPU is designed for serious graphics work, but it means the FX-4320 might be able to output a display through the chipset on AM3+ boards that support it. The Athlon requires a discrete GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are all wins for the Athlon X4 860K, with margins between 8.0% and 8.5%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Athlon scores 294 against the FX-4320's 269, a delta of 8.5% in favor of the Athlon. This is the largest margin in the set, and it reflects the Athlon's ability to sustain higher throughput across all four cores.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Athlon scores 1225 versus 1124 for the FX-4320, a delta of 8.2%. The single-core R20 test shows a similar story: the Athlon scores 172, the FX-4320 scores 158, a delta of 8.1%. Single-core performance is often a weak point for AMD processors of this era, but the Athlon still manages a clear lead here, which suggests that Steamroller's IPC advantage is substantial.

Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the pattern: the Athlon scores 2918, the FX-4320 scores 2677, a delta of 8.3%. In R23 single-core, the Athlon scores 411, the FX-4320 scores 378, a delta of 8.0%. The margins are remarkably consistent, hovering around 8% across all workloads. This consistency indicates that the Athlon's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general architectural superiority.

The Athlon also has additional benchmark data that the FX-4320 lacks. In Geekbench multi-core, the Athlon scores 1126, and in Geekbench single-core, it scores 454. These scores are not directly comparable to the FX-4320 because the FX-4320 has no Geekbench results in the database, but they provide context for the Athlon's overall capability. The average benchmark score for the Athlon is 943, versus 921 for the FX-4320, a gap of about 2.4% across all recorded tests.

The nearest rival data puts both processors in the same performance tier. The FX-4320's nearest rival is the AMD PRO A10-9700E with an average score of 919 and a delta of 0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G at 919 with the same delta. The Intel Celeron G6900TE sits at 925, which is 0.4% higher than the FX-4320. The Athlon X4 860K's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-2715QE at 942 (0.1% higher), the AMD A8-7670K at 944 (0.1% lower), and the Intel Core i3-8145U at 941 (0.2% higher). Both CPUs sit at the 25th percentile among all CPUs, so neither is a high performer by modern standards, but the Athlon is measurably faster than the FX-4320 in every recorded test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 860K wins every multi-core Cinebench test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 294 versus 269 for the FX-4320, a margin of 8.5%. In R20 multi-core, it scores 1225 versus 1124, and in R23 multi-core, 2918 versus 2677.

Q: Does the FX-4320 have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The Athlon X4 860K also wins single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Athlon scores 172 against 158 for the FX-4320, and in R23 single-core, 411 against 378. The FX-4320's higher base clock does not translate into a single-core win.

Q: What socket do these processors use?

A: The FX-4320 uses AMD Socket AM3+, while the Athlon X4 860K uses AMD Socket FM2+. These sockets are not interchangeable, so upgrading from one to the other would require a new motherboard.

Q: How much L3 cache does the Athlon X4 860K have?

A: The Athlon X4 860K has no L3 cache. It only has 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache. The FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1, 4 MB of L2, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes, both have unlocked multipliers. The FX-4320 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost of 4.20 GHz, while the Athlon X4 860K has a base of 3.70 GHz and a boost of 4.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Athlon X4 860K has a higher memory bandwidth rating of 34.1 GB/s, compared to 29.9 GB/s for the FX-4320. Both support dual-channel DDR3 memory.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Athlon X4 860K is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests with consistent margins around 8%, and it also posts higher average benchmark scores (943 versus 921). For users building a new system or upgrading an FM2+ board, the Athlon X4 860K is the clear choice for performance.

The FX-4320 is not without merit, but its merits are platform-specific. It fits AM3+ motherboards, which may be relevant for users with existing AM3+ systems who want a drop-in upgrade without changing the board. It also includes an L3 cache, which the Athlon lacks, and its base clock is higher at 4.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. However, these features do not overcome the Athlon's architectural advantage in the benchmarks.

For anyone choosing between these two for a new build, the Athlon X4 860K is the better performer. Its Steamroller architecture, denser 28 nm process, higher memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 3 support give it a more modern feature set. The FX-4320, despite its higher clocks, cannot match the Athlon's efficiency in any measured workload. The only reason to pick the FX-4320 would be to reuse an existing AM3+ motherboard, but that is a compatibility consideration, not a performance one.

The Athlon also has more benchmark data recorded, including Geekbench scores of 1126 multi-core and 454 single-core, which further confirms its capability. Both CPUs sit at the 25th percentile among all CPUs, so neither is competitive with modern processors, but within this pairing, the Athlon X4 860K is the superior option.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FX-4320 | AMD Athlon X4 860K |

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

| Architecture | Piledriver | Steamroller |

| Codename | Vishera | Kaveri |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | GlobalFoundries |

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

| Die Size | 315 mm² | 245 mm² |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

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

| 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) | None |

| Release Date | 2012-10-22 | 2014-08-11 |

| Part Number | FD4320WMW4KHK | AD860KXBJABOXAD860KWOHLBOXAD860KXBJASBXAD860KXBI44JA |

Both processors share 4 cores, 4 threads, 95 W TDP, dual-channel DDR3 memory support, no ECC memory, unlocked multipliers, and end-of-life production status. They also both come from AMD and target the desktop market segment. The differences above are the only fields where the two parts diverge in the recorded data.