AMD FX-4320 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G Comparison

The AMD FX-4320 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G are separated by nearly eight years of silicon evolution, yet their benchmark scores are almost indistinguishable. The FX-4320, a 2012 desktop processor built on 32nm Piledriver, and the R1305G, a 2020 mobile chip on 14nm Zen, land within 0.2% of each other in average benchmark score. The data reveals a fascinating convergence: the older chip's brute-force approach of four cores at 4.00 GHz matches the newer chip's efficient dual-core design with simultaneous multithreading, despite the latter consuming a fraction of the power. This comparison is less about raw performance and more about what each design philosophy prioritizes, as their architectural differences produce identical results in synthetic workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is decisively one-sided in terms of raw score victories, with the FX-4320 taking all five head-to-head tests. However, the margins are so narrow that they border on statistical noise. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, both processors score exactly 269 points, resulting in a 0.0% delta. The FX-4320 edges ahead in Cinebench R20 multicore with 1124 points versus 1121, a mere 0.3% advantage. Single-core results tell the same story: Cinebench R20 single-core shows a tie at 158 points, while Cinebench R23 single-core gives the FX-4320 a 378-to-377 win, again just 0.3% ahead.

The FX-4320's wins are entirely marginal, suggesting that its architectural advantages—more physical cores and a higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz—do not translate into meaningful performance gains in these tests. The R1305G, despite having only 2 cores (but 4 threads), matches the FX-4320's 4-core, 4-thread output. This implies the R1305G's Zen architecture achieves much higher instructions-per-clock, allowing it to compensate for its lower 2.80 GHz boost clock and 1500 MHz base clock. The R1305G's real victory is found outside the benchmark scores: its 10W TDP versus the FX-4320's 95W TDP represents a 90% reduction in power draw, a massive efficiency win that no Cinebench score can capture.

The data also shows that both processors occupy the same performance tier globally. The FX-4320 sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the R1305G sits at the 24th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 921 and 919, respectively. This means that in terms of expected performance, they are functionally equivalent, with the FX-4320 holding a 0.2% edge. The nearest rivals for both include the AMD PRO A10-9700E (919 average score) and the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U (917 average score), further confirming that this performance bracket is crowded with similarly capable processors.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the use case, as performance is essentially a tie. The FX-4320 is the pick for anyone who needs a traditional desktop CPU with an unlocked multiplier. Its 4.00 GHz base clock and 4.20 GHz boost clock, combined with an unlocked multiplier, make it a candidate for overclocking on AMD Socket AM3+ motherboards. It has 4 MB of L2 cache and 4 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the L2 cache of the R1305G. The FX-4320 also supports DDR3 memory across a dual-channel bus, which may be advantageous for users with existing DDR3 systems.

The Ryzen Embedded R1305G is the superior choice for embedded, mobile, or low-power applications. Its 10W TDP is critical for fanless designs or battery-powered devices. The integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU, which the FX-4320 lacks (it relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards). The R1305G's 14nm Zen architecture also provides a smaller die size of 148 mm² versus the FX-4320's 315 mm², despite the R1305G containing nearly three times as many transistors (3,500 million versus 1,200 million). The R1305G is actively in production, while the FX-4320 is end-of-life, making the former a more future-proof option for new designs.

The data suggests that for pure compute tasks, the FX-4320's 0.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore is irrelevant in practice. For everything else, the R1305G's efficiency and integrated graphics make it the more versatile part. The FX-4320 is a relic of a time when power draw was less of a concern; the R1305G represents the modern approach where performance-per-watt is paramount. Neither chip will impress in modern workloads, but the R1305G will do so while sipping power and fitting into compact embedded systems, whereas the FX-4320 will require a full desktop platform and a capable cooler to manage its 95W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The closest result in the head-to-head set is the Cinebench R15 multicore test, where both processors score exactly 269. This perfect tie is remarkable given the architectural differences: the FX-4320 has four physical cores without multithreading, while the R1305G has two physical cores with four threads. The equal score suggests that the R1305G's Zen cores are roughly twice as efficient as the FX-4320's Piledriver cores in this workload, since half the physical cores produce the same result.

The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows the FX-4320 winning with 1124 points against 1121 points for the R1305G. This 0.3% delta is the largest advantage the FX-4320 manages in any test. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the FX-4320 scores 2677 versus 2670, again a 0.3% difference. These multicore results indicate that the FX-4320's extra physical cores provide a slight edge in fully threaded workloads, but the R1305G's simultaneous multithreading closes most of the gap.

Single-core tests are even tighter. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a dead tie at 158 points for both. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the FX-4320 a 378-to-377 victory, a 0.3% lead. These single-core results are telling: the R1305G's Zen architecture, despite a much lower boost clock of 2.80 GHz, nearly matches the FX-4320's 4.20 GHz boost clock in single-threaded performance. This confirms that the Zen core has a significantly higher instructions-per-clock rate than Piledriver, making the R1305G the more efficient design in every measurable way. The overall wins tally is 5 for the FX-4320 and 0 for the R1305G, but the average benchmark scores of 921 versus 919 tell the real story: these are effectively equal processors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has an average benchmark score of 921, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G scores 919. This gives the FX-4320 a 0.2% advantage, placing it at the 25th percentile of all CPUs versus the R1305G's 24th percentile.

Q: Are the two processors similar in multicore performance?

A: Yes, they are nearly identical. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the FX-4320 scores 2677 and the R1305G scores 2670, a 0.3% difference. The Cinebench R15 multicore test results in a perfect tie at 269 points for both processors.

Q: Does the Ryzen Embedded R1305G have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the R1305G features Radeon Vega 3 integrated graphics. The FX-4320 does not have integrated graphics; it relies on a chipset feature that may be present on certain motherboards.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The FX-4320 has a TDP of 95W, while the R1305G has a TDP of 10W. This represents a 90% reduction in power draw for the R1305G, making it far more suitable for low-power or embedded applications.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus, offering a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD FX-4320 supports DDR3 memory, also dual-channel, with a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: No. The FX-4320 is end-of-life, while the R1305G is an active production part. The FX-4320 was released in 2012, and the R1305G was released in 2020.

Architecture Differences

The FX-4320 is built on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, using a 32nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It contains 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The R1305G uses the Zen architecture, also from GlobalFoundries but on a 14nm node, packing 3,500 million transistors into a smaller 148 mm² die. This transistor density difference is dramatic: the R1305G fits nearly three times as many transistors into less than half the die area, explaining its superior efficiency.

The core configurations differ significantly. The FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The R1305G has 2 cores and 4 threads, using SMT to double its thread count. Cache hierarchies also differ: the FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, while the R1305G has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, totaling 1 MB of L2 cache. Both share 4 MB of L3 cache, but the R1305G's smaller individual caches are offset by the higher efficiency of the Zen architecture.

Memory support diverges as well. The FX-4320 uses DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus, yielding 29.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The R1305G uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, achieving 38.4 GB/s. The PCIe support also differs: the FX-4320 is limited to PCIe Gen 2, while the R1305G offers PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes available from the CPU. The R1305G also includes Radeon Vega 3 integrated graphics, while the FX-4320 has no on-die graphics. The FX-4320's multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking, whereas the R1305G's multiplier is locked.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is core and thread count: the FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the R1305G has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clock speeds are drastically different, with the FX-4320 running at 4.00 GHz and the R1305G at 1500 MHz (1.50 GHz). Boost clocks show a similar gap: 4.20 GHz for the FX-4320 versus 2.80 GHz for the R1305G. The TDP difference is the most striking: 95W for the FX-4320 versus 10W for the R1305G.

The sockets are entirely incompatible: the FX-4320 uses AMD Socket AM3+, while the R1305G uses AMD Socket FP5. Process nodes differ at 32nm and 14nm, respectively. Transistor counts are 1,200 million for the FX-4320 and 3,500 million for the R1305G. Die sizes are 315 mm² versus 148 mm². Cache configurations differ, with the FX-4320 having 192 KB L1 and 4 MB L2, while the R1305G has 96 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core. Memory support is DDR3 for the FX-4320 and DDR4 for the R1305G, with memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s and 38.4 GB/s, respectively. PCIe support is Gen 2 on the FX-4320 and Gen 3 with 8 lanes on the R1305G. Integrated graphics are absent on the FX-4320 (chipset-dependent) and present as Radeon Vega 3 on the R1305G. The market segment is Desktop for the FX-4320 and Mobile for the R1305G. Production status is end-of-life for the FX-4320 and active for the R1305G. The multiplier is unlocked on the FX-4320 and locked on the R1305G.