AMD FX-4320 vs Intel Core i3-10110Y Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent picture across the five Cinebench tests: the AMD FX-4320 wins every single head-to-head comparison, though by margins that are almost negligible. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the FX-4320 scores 269 against 265 for the Core i3-10110Y, a 1.5% advantage. That pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the AMD part posts 1124 versus 1108, a 1.4% edge. The single-core R20 result is similarly tight: 158 to 156, a 1.3% lead for the FX-4320.

The R23 tests follow the same trajectory. In multi-core, the FX-4320 records 2677 while the Intel chip manages 2640, a 1.4% gap. Single-core R23 shows the largest relative difference of the entire comparison, with the AMD processor at 378 and the Intel at 372, a 1.6% lead. These are not decisive victories in any absolute sense; the largest delta is under two percent. But the sweep is total: five wins for the FX-4320, zero for the Core i3-10110Y.

When looking at average benchmark scores, the FX-4320 holds a 921 average against 908 for the i3-10110Y. That places the AMD part in the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip sits at the 24th percentile. The nearest rivals for each processor confirm their close standing. The FX-4320 is within 0.4% of the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U and within 0.2% of both the AMD PRO A10-9700E and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G. It trails the Intel Celeron G6900TE by 0.4%. The i3-10110Y matches the Intel Core i3-4330T and AMD Ryzen 3 3250U exactly at 908, sits 0.3% behind the AMD PRO A12-9800E, and leads the AMD A10-7860K by 0.4%.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate that the FX-4320 wins across every tested workload, but the margins are thin enough that the story is more about consistency than dominance. The AMD processor takes multi-core tests on the strength of its four physical cores, though the i3-10110Y counters with four threads via Hyper-Threading on two cores. The result is a near parity in threaded workloads, with the FX-4320 never pulling ahead by more than 1.5% in any multi-core test.

Single-core results are even closer, which is notable given the architectural differences. The FX-4320 leads by 1.3% in R20 single-core and 1.6% in R23 single-core. These small margins suggest that the i3-10110Y's higher boost clock, listed at 4.00 GHz, nearly compensates for the FX-4320's higher base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost of 4.20 GHz. The Intel chip's Comet Lake architecture appears to deliver competitive per-clock performance, but the AMD part's slight clock advantage tips the scales.

For use cases, the data supports the FX-4320 as the choice for any workload represented by these Cinebench tests. Rendering, which these benchmarks simulate, favors the AMD processor in every instance. However, the practical difference between a 1.3% and a 1.6% lead is within run-to-run variance for many real-world applications. The i3-10110Y's integrated UHD Graphics gives it a capability the FX-4320 lacks, as the AMD chip relies on chipset-based graphics on certain motherboards. That is not reflected in the CPU benchmark scores but matters for systems without a discrete GPU.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The FX-4320 uses AMD's Piledriver architecture under the Vishera codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The i3-10110Y uses Intel's Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-Y, on a 14 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is significant: 32 nm versus 14 nm, which explains the massive disparity in power consumption.

The FX-4320 carries a 95 W TDP, while the i3-10110Y is rated at just 9 W. That is a 10-fold difference in thermal design power. The AMD chip is a desktop part on the AMD Socket AM3+, while the Intel chip is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1440. The market segments reflect this: the FX-4320 targets desktop systems, the i3-10110Y targets mobile devices.

Core counts differ as well. The FX-4320 has four cores and four threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. The i3-10110Y has two cores and four threads, using Intel's Hyper-Threading to reach thread parity. Cache configurations are notably different. The FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1 cache, 4 MB of L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-10110Y lists 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. For a two-core chip, that means 128 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 total, far less than the FX-4320's aggregate cache, though the L3 totals match at 4 MB.

Memory support shows both processors use DDR3, with the FX-4320 running dual-channel and offering 29.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The i3-10110Y lists DDR3 support but no memory bus or bandwidth figures in the database. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the i3-10110Y is locked. PCIe support differs as well: the FX-4320 runs Gen 2, while the i3-10110Y has no PCIe data recorded.

Production status diverges sharply. The FX-4320 is end-of-life, released in October 2012. The i3-10110Y is active, released in August 2019. The Intel part is seven years newer and remains in production. The FX-4320's part number is FD4320WMW4KHK; the i3-10110Y has no part number listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the AMD FX-4320 takes every benchmark in this comparison. For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the FX-4320 offers a consistent, albeit small, advantage across all five tests. The largest margin, 1.6% in R23 single-core, is not transformative, but it is uniform. There is no test in the database where the Intel Core i3-10110Y comes out ahead.

However, the verdict depends on context beyond raw scores. The i3-10110Y delivers comparable performance at a fraction of the power budget: 9 W versus 95 W. For a mobile or low-power system, that difference is enormous. The FX-4320 cannot be used in a thin-and-light laptop; it is a desktop part on Socket AM3+ with a 95 W thermal envelope. The i3-10110Y also includes UHD Graphics, giving it an integrated GPU solution, whereas the FX-4320 relies on chipset features on certain motherboards.

For a desktop user with an existing AM3+ platform and adequate cooling, the FX-4320 is the better performer in these tests. Its unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for overclocking. For a mobile user or anyone prioritizing power efficiency, the i3-10110Y is the rational choice despite losing every benchmark, because the performance gap is under 2% while the power draw is under 10% of the AMD part. The production status matters too: the FX-4320 is end-of-life, so new system builds would favor the active i3-10110Y. The benchmark data alone favors AMD, but the full picture suggests the Intel chip serves a different, more energy-conscious use case.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD FX-4320 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 269 versus 265 in Cinebench R15, 1124 versus 1108 in R20, and 2677 versus 2640 in R23.

Q: How large is the performance gap between these two CPUs?

A: The largest delta in any head-to-head test is 1.6%, in Cinebench R23 single-core. All other margins range from 1.3% to 1.5%, all favoring the FX-4320.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The FX-4320 has four cores and four threads. The i3-10110Y has two cores and four threads, using Hyper-Threading to match thread count.

Q: Which processor consumes less power?

A: The Intel Core i3-10110Y has a 9 W TDP, while the AMD FX-4320 has a 95 W TDP. The Intel chip uses roughly one-tenth the thermal design power.

Q: Is either processor still in production?

A: The FX-4320 is end-of-life. The i3-10110Y is active and currently in production.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the AMD FX-4320 and the Intel Core i3-10110Y list ECC memory support as false.

Q: What integrated graphics do these chips offer?

A: The i3-10110Y includes UHD Graphics. The FX-4320 relies on chipset-based graphics on certain motherboards, so it has no dedicated integrated GPU of its own.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The FX-4320 averages 921 across its benchmark results. The i3-10110Y averages 908. That places the AMD part at the 25th percentile of all CPUs and the Intel part at the 24th percentile.