AMD FX-4320 vs Intel Core i3-4330T Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4330T has 2 physical cores and 4 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading.

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

A: The AMD FX-4320 has a TDP of 95 watts, whereas the Intel Core i3-4330T is rated at just 35 watts, making the Intel part far more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Do both CPUs support DDR3 memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD FX-4320 and the Intel Core i3-4330T support DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The AMD part lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Intel part does not have a recorded bandwidth figure.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-4330T includes Intel HD 4600 graphics. The AMD FX-4320 does not have integrated graphics; it relies on the chipset feature of certain motherboards.

Q: Are both CPUs unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The AMD FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Core i3-4330T does not.

Q: What are the release dates of these two processors?

A: The AMD FX-4320 was released on October 22, 2012, while the Intel Core i3-4330T followed on August 31, 2013.

Where Each One Wins

The data from the head-to-head benchmarks tells a consistent story: the AMD FX-4320 wins every single recorded test. Across all five Cinebench runs, the FX-4320 takes the top spot, with margins ranging from 1.3% to 1.6%. The largest advantage comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the AMD part scores 378 versus 372 for the Intel, a 1.6% lead. In multi-core workloads, the FX-4320 also edges ahead, posting 2677 in Cinebench R23 multi-core compared to 2639 for the i3-4330T, a 1.4% difference.

However, the Intel Core i3-4330T wins in a different arena: power consumption. With a 35-watt TDP against the AMD part's 95 watts, the i3-4330T is the clear choice for systems where thermal output and energy draw are the primary constraints. This makes the Intel part better suited for compact desktop builds or always-on machines, even though it loses every benchmark race in the database.

The AMD FX-4320 also has the advantage of four physical cores, which can matter in heavily threaded applications even when the benchmark deltas are narrow. Its unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for enthusiasts who want to push clock speeds beyond the recorded 4.20 GHz boost. The Intel part, by contrast, offers no overclocking headroom.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture under the Vishera codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors into a 315 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-4330T uses the Haswell architecture, also under the Haswell codename, fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors in a much smaller 177 mm² die.

The cache layouts diverge significantly. The AMD FX-4320 carries 192 KB of L1 cache, 4 MB of L2 cache, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 4 MB L3 cache. This means the Intel chip's per-core cache allocation is more generous, while the AMD chip relies on a larger aggregate L2 pool.

PCIe support also differs. The AMD FX-4320 uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel Core i3-4330T supports PCIe Gen 3. Integrated graphics are another major split: the Intel part includes Intel HD 4600, whereas the AMD part has no integrated graphics and depends on chipset features from certain motherboards.

Clock behavior is different as well. The AMD FX-4320 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel Core i3-4330T has a base clock of 3.00 GHz with no boost clock recorded. Despite the lower clock speed, the Intel part's efficiency keeps it within striking distance in benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The AMD FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4330T has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks stand at 4.00 GHz for the AMD part and 3.00 GHz for the Intel part. The AMD chip has a 4.20 GHz boost clock; the Intel chip has none recorded.

TDP is a stark contrast: 95 watts for the AMD FX-4320 versus 35 watts for the Intel Core i3-4330T. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket AM3+ for the FX-4320, Intel Socket 1150 for the i3-4330T. Process nodes differ as well, with AMD on 32 nm and Intel on 22 nm. The AMD die measures 315 mm², the Intel die 177 mm². Transistor counts are 1,200 million for AMD and 1,400 million for Intel.

Memory bandwidth is listed at 29.9 GB/s for the AMD part, with no figure recorded for the Intel part. PCIe generations are Gen 2 for AMD and Gen 3 for Intel. Integrated graphics are absent on the AMD chip, while the Intel chip has Intel HD 4600. The AMD FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel i3-4330T does not. Production status for the AMD part is end-of-life, with no status recorded for the Intel part. Release dates are October 22, 2012 for AMD and August 31, 2013 for Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD FX-4320. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 269 against 265 for the Intel, a 1.5% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 1124 for AMD, 1108 for Intel, a 1.4% margin.

Single-core results follow the same trend. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD FX-4320 scores 158, the Intel 156, for a 1.3% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the AMD part 378 and the Intel 372, which is a 1.6% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core rounds out the set with 2677 for AMD and 2639 for Intel, a 1.4% edge.

The average benchmark scores echo these results. The AMD FX-4320 posts an average benchmark score of 921 overall, placing it at the 25th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core i3-4330T has an average score of 908, sitting at the 24th percentile. The nearest rivals to the AMD part include the AMD PRO A10-9700E and AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G at 919 average score with a 0.2% delta, plus the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U at 917 with a 0.4% delta, and Intel Celeron 6900TE at 925 with a -0.4% delta. For the Intel part, the closest competitors are the Intel Core i3-10110Y and AMD Ryzen 3 3250U at 908 average score with a 0% delta, plus the AMD PRO A12-9800E at 910 with a -0.3% delta, and AMD A10-7860K at 904 with a 0.4% delta.

The consistency of the AMD wins matters more than the narrow margins. A 1.5% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core and a 1.3% win in Cinebench R20 single-core suggest that the FX-4320 holds a slight but repeatable advantage across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads. The Intel i3-4330T never flips the result in any recorded test, despite its lower TDP and smaller process node. The database shows the FX-4320 as the faster processor, but only barely, and the Intel part's efficiency remains its own kind of victory.