CPU Comparison
AMD FX-4320
PRO A10-9700E
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD FX-4320 vs AMD PRO A10-9700E
The AMD FX-4320 and AMD PRO A10-9700E are both quad-core desktop parts from AMD, but they represent very different eras and design philosophies. The data places them as near-identical in overall average benchmark score, with the FX-4320 at 921 and the PRO A10-9700E at 919, a delta of just 0.2%. Both sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs. However, the FX-4320 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests by margins of 3.9% to 4.1%. The PRO A10-9700E counters with a lower 35W TDP, a newer socket, DDR4 memory support, and integrated Radeon R7 graphics, making the choice entirely dependent on platform needs rather than raw compute performance.
The Verdict
The data presents a clear split: for pure multi-threaded and single-threaded CPU workload performance, the AMD FX-4320 is the consistent winner. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the FX-4320 leads by 3.9% to 4.1% in every single test. This is a narrow but uniform margin, indicating that the FX-4320’s higher base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz provide a tangible edge over the PRO A10-9700E’s 3.00 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost.
However, the PRO A10-9700E wins on platform-level features. It uses a 35W TDP compared to the FX-4320’s 95W, making it far more suitable for compact or power-sensitive systems. It also supports DDR4 memory (38.4 GB/s bandwidth) versus the FX-4320’s DDR3 (29.9 GB/s), and includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The PRO A10-9700E is also listed as Active production, while the FX-4320 is End-of-life.
Choose the FX-4320 if you have an existing AM3+ platform and need the last bit of CPU performance from that socket, especially for lightly-threaded tasks where its 4.20 GHz boost helps. Choose the PRO A10-9700E if you are building a new low-power system on AM4, require integrated graphics, or want DDR4 memory support. The benchmark data shows the FX-4320 is faster, but the PRO A10-9700E is the more modern and versatile platform choice.
Where Each One Wins
The FX-4320 wins exclusively in computational benchmarks. It takes all five head-to-head Cinebench tests: R15 multicore (269 vs 259), R20 multicore (1124 vs 1081), R20 singlecore (158 vs 152), R23 multicore (2677 vs 2574), and R23 singlecore (378 vs 363). The largest margin is a 4.1% lead in Cinebench R23 singlecore, and the smallest is a 3.9% lead in R15 multicore. This suggests the FX-4320 is the better choice for CPU-bound rendering or calculation tasks, though the margin is modest.
The PRO A10-9700E wins in every non-benchmark category. It has a 35W TDP versus 95W, meaning significantly lower power draw and heat output. It features a newer AM4 socket, which offers a modern upgrade path, and supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes compared to the FX-4320’s PCIe Gen 2. Its memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s over DDR4, versus 29.9 GB/s over DDR3. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics are a definitive advantage for systems without a discrete GPU. The PRO A10-9700E also has a larger L1 cache (320 KB vs 192 KB) and more transistors (3,100 million vs 1,200 million), though it lacks the FX-4320’s L3 cache entirely.
Architecture Differences
The two CPUs come from different architectural generations. The FX-4320 is based on the Piledriver architecture (codename Vishera), built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1, 4 MB of L2, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. It uses the AM3+ socket, supports dual-channel DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, and has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. It does not have integrated graphics, relying on a chipset feature on certain motherboards.
The PRO A10-9700E uses the Excavator architecture (codename Bristol Ridge), fabricated on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 250 mm² die. It also has 4 cores and 4 threads, but clocks much lower at 3.00 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. Cache is 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. It uses the AM4 socket, supports dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and has a locked multiplier. It includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The transistor count difference is notable: the PRO A10-9700E has over 2.5 times as many transistors, reflecting its integrated GPU and newer architecture, despite the larger 28 nm node. The FX-4320 compensates with a much higher clock speed and a 4 MB L3 cache.
FAQ
Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The AMD FX-4320 has an average benchmark score of 921, while the AMD PRO A10-9700E has 919. The FX-4320 leads by 0.2%, which is effectively a tie.
Q: Does the FX-4320 beat the PRO A10-9700E in all Cinebench tests?
A: Yes. The FX-4320 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests: R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, R23 multicore, and R23 singlecore, with margins from 3.9% to 4.1%.
Q: What is the TDP difference between these two processors?
A: The FX-4320 has a TDP of 95W, while the PRO A10-9700E has a TDP of 35W. The PRO A10-9700E consumes significantly less power.
Q: Which CPU supports DDR4 memory?
A: The AMD PRO A10-9700E supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The FX-4320 is limited to dual-channel DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Does either CPU have integrated graphics?
A: The PRO A10-9700E includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The FX-4320 does not have integrated graphics; it relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards.
Q: Which CPU has an unlocked multiplier?
A: The AMD FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking. The PRO A10-9700E has a locked multiplier.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head data shows a consistent, narrow victory for the FX-4320 across all Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the FX-4320 scores 269 against 259 for the PRO A10-9700E, a 3.9% lead. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the FX-4320 scores 1124 versus 1081, a 4% margin. The single-core results are similar: R20 singlecore shows 158 for the FX-4320 and 152 for the PRO A10-9700E, again a 3.9% difference.
The newer Cinebench R23 tests paint the same picture. In R23 multicore, the FX-4320 achieves 2677, while the PRO A10-9700E achieves 2574, a 4% difference. The largest relative win for the FX-4320 comes in R23 singlecore, where it scores 378 versus 363, a 4.1% lead. Across all five tests, the FX-4320’s advantage is remarkably consistent, hovering between 3.9% and 4.1%. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is due to the FX-4320’s higher clock speeds rather than any architectural advantage in specific workloads. The PRO A10-9700E’s lack of an L3 cache and lower clocks (3.50 GHz boost versus 4.20 GHz) are the likely contributors to its consistent deficit, despite its newer Excavator architecture and higher transistor count. The FX-4320’s 4 MB shared L3 cache appears to provide a meaningful benefit in these rendering workloads, offsetting the PRO A10-9700E’s advantages in memory bandwidth and process node.