AMD FX-4320 vs AMD Ryzen 3 3250U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between the AMD FX-4320 and the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U, with each processor taking wins in different workload types. The Ryzen 3 3250U wins two of the three direct comparisons, but the FX-4320 claims the most decisive victory in the modern multi-core test.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the FX-4320 posts a score of 2677 against the Ryzen 3 3250U's 2010. That is a 33.2% advantage for the older desktop chip, a substantial margin that reflects the FX-4320's four physical cores operating at higher clock speeds. This is the largest delta in either direction across the head-to-head results.

The Ryzen 3 3250U strikes back in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 776 versus the FX-4320's 378. That is a 51.3% lead for the mobile part, and it represents the most lopsided result in the comparison. The single-core gap is more than half again as large as the FX-4320's multi-core lead, which indicates a fundamental difference in per-thread efficiency between the two architectures.

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows another win for the Ryzen 3 3250U, scoring 353 against the FX-4320's 269. The delta is 23.8% in favor of the Ryzen part. This is an interesting result because it contradicts the R23 multi-core outcome. The FX-4320 wins the newer version of the multi-core benchmark while losing the older version by a wide margin. The database shows this kind of cross-benchmark divergence when architectural efficiency and thread scheduling interact differently across test revisions.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the FX-4320 sits at an average score of 921 across all recorded tests, while the Ryzen 3 3250U averages 908. The FX-4320's nearest rivals include the AMD PRO A10-9700E at 919 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G at 919 (0.2% behind), and the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U at 917 (0.4% behind). The Intel Celeron G6900TE sits slightly ahead at 925, a 0.4% margin over the FX-4320. The Ryzen 3 3250U, meanwhile, sits right alongside the Intel Core i3-4330T and Intel Core i3-10110Y, both at 908 with a 0% delta, while the AMD PRO A12-9800E is 0.3% ahead and the AMD A10-7860K trails by 0.4%. Both processors occupy nearly the same percentile tier, with the FX-4320 at the 25th percentile of all CPUs and the Ryzen 3 3250U at the 24th percentile.

The pattern is clear: the FX-4320 dominates in sustained multi-threaded rendering with the newest Cinebench version, while the Ryzen 3 3250U wins single-thread performance decisively and also takes the older multi-core test. The average benchmark scores place them within 1.4% of each other overall, making this a close matchup that depends heavily on workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD FX-4320 scores 2677 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 33.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U's 2010.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U scores 776 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 378 for the AMD FX-4320, a 51.3% advantage for the Ryzen part.

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R15 multi-core test?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U wins with a score of 353, beating the AMD FX-4320's 269 by 23.8%.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has an average benchmark score of 921, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U averages 908, a difference of roughly 1.4%.

Q: Which processor sits higher in the overall CPU percentile ranking?

A: The AMD FX-4320 sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U sits at the 24th percentile, making them essentially equivalent in overall standing.

Q: What do the nearest rival comparisons show for each processor?

A: The FX-4320's closest rival is the AMD PRO A10-9700E at 919, just 0.2% behind, while the Ryzen 3 3250U matches the Intel Core i3-4330T and Intel Core i3-10110Y at 908 with a 0% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural lineages. The AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture under the Vishera codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U uses the Zen architecture under the Dali codename, built on a 14 nm process, also at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is significant: the FX-4320 uses 32 nm, while the Ryzen 3 3250U uses 14 nm, a generational leap in manufacturing technology.

Die size and transistor counts reflect this architectural shift. The FX-4320 has a die size of 315 mm² with 1,200 million transistors. The Ryzen 3 3250U packs 3,500 million transistors into a much smaller 148 mm² die. That means the Ryzen part fits nearly three times as many transistors into less than half the silicon area, which explains its efficiency advantage.

The core configurations differ substantially. The FX-4320 has four cores and four threads, while the Ryzen 3 3250U has two cores and four threads. The FX-4320 relies on raw core count, while the Ryzen 3 3250U uses simultaneous multithreading to reach four threads from two physical cores. Clock speeds also differ: the FX-4320 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the Ryzen 3 3250U runs at 2.60 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The FX-4320's higher clocks help it in multi-core workloads, but the Ryzen's newer architecture delivers far better per-clock performance.

Cache layouts follow different design philosophies. The FX-4320 has a 192 KB L1 cache, a 4 MB L2 cache, and a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 3 3250U allocates its caches differently: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3. The FX-4320's larger L2 is shared across the die, while the Ryzen part dedicates its L2 to each core.

Memory support and platform connectivity also differ. The FX-4320 supports DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus with 29.9 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Ryzen 3 3250U supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s. PCIe generation advances from Gen 2 on the FX-4320 to Gen 3 on the Ryzen 3 3250U. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The integrated graphics situation is one of the clearest differentiators. The FX-4320 has no dedicated integrated graphics; graphics come from the chipset on certain motherboards. The Ryzen 3 3250U includes Radeon Vega 3 integrated graphics directly on the processor. The Ryzen part also targets the mobile segment with a 15 W TDP, while the FX-4320 is a desktop part with a 95 W TDP, a six-fold difference in power envelope.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. Core count: the FX-4320 has 4 cores, the Ryzen 3 3250U has 2 cores. Thread count: both have 4 threads. Base clock: 4.00 GHz for the FX-4320 versus 2.60 GHz for the Ryzen 3 3250U. Boost clock: 4.20 GHz versus 3.50 GHz. TDP: 95 W versus 15 W. Socket: AMD Socket AM3+ versus AMD Socket FP5. Architecture: Piledriver versus Zen. Codename: Vishera versus Dali. Process node: 32 nm versus 14 nm. Foundry: both GlobalFoundries, but the transistor counts diverge at 1,200 million versus 3,500 million, and die sizes at 315 mm² versus 148 mm².

Memory support differs as well: DDR3 versus DDR4, with bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. PCIe generation: Gen 2 versus Gen 3. The FX-4320 has no integrated graphics (chipset-dependent), while the Ryzen 3 3250U has Radeon Vega 3. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Production status: End-of-life versus Active. Release dates: October 2012 versus January 2020. The FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ryzen 3 3250U does not. Part numbers also differ: FD4320WMW4KHK for the FX-4320, YM3250C4T2OFG for the Ryzen 3 3250U.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-4320 wins in scenarios that demand sustained multi-threaded throughput. Its 33.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core demonstrates that four physical cores at high clock speeds can still outperform a newer two-core part with multithreading in certain rendering workloads. The FX-4320 also edges out the Ryzen 3 3250U in overall average benchmark score, 921 versus 908, and sits one percentile point higher at the 25th percentile versus the 24th. Users running heavily threaded applications that scale with physical core count will see the FX-4320 pull ahead.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U wins decisively in single-thread performance, with a 51.3% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. It also wins the Cinebench R15 multi-core test by 23.8%, showing that in older benchmark versions, its architectural efficiency overcomes the core count disadvantage. The Ryzen part's integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics make it a complete platform solution, whereas the FX-4320 depends on motherboard chipsets for display output. The Ryzen 3 3250U also offers DDR4 memory support with higher bandwidth, PCIe Gen 3 connectivity, and a dramatically lower 15 W TDP, which suits compact and battery-powered systems.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a workload-dependent choice rather than a clear overall winner. The AMD FX-4320 should be selected by users prioritizing modern multi-core rendering performance, where its 33.2% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and its higher average benchmark score of 921 give it a measurable edge. It is also the only one of the two with an unlocked multiplier, which matters for overclocking-oriented desktop builds on the AM3+ platform.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U should be selected by users who value single-thread responsiveness, integrated graphics, and platform efficiency. Its 51.3% lead in single-core performance makes it the better choice for everyday applications that rely on per-thread speed. The built-in Radeon Vega 3 graphics, DDR4 support, and 15 W TDP suit mobile and small-form-factor systems where the FX-4320's 95 W desktop design would be impractical.

For users who can only pick one based on the recorded measurements, the Ryzen 3 3250U wins more head-to-head tests (two of three) and offers a more modern feature set across memory, PCIe, process node, and graphics. However, the FX-4320's large multi-core victory in the newest Cinebench version keeps it relevant for specific multi-threaded desktop workloads. The data does not declare a universal winner, but it clearly identifies which tasks each processor handles best.