CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4350T and AMD FX-4320 are two end-of-life desktop processors that land in the same performance tier despite very different designs. The data shows a remarkably tight contest: the Intel part holds a narrow lead in every single Cinebench test, with the average benchmark score sitting at 926 for the i3-4350T versus 921 for the FX-4320. Both chips occupy the 25th percentile among all CPUs, and their nearest rivals list includes each other, with the Intel part edging out the AMD chip by just 0.5% in average score. The margins are so thin that the practical difference in daily use is negligible, yet the consistency of the Intel wins tells a story about efficiency versus raw core count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a clean sweep for the Intel Core i3-4350T, though every victory is measured in fractions of a percent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-4350T scores 271 against the FX-4320’s 269, a 0.7% advantage. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Intel chip posts 1130 to the AMD chip’s 1124, a 0.5% lead. The single-core tests follow the same trajectory: Cinebench R20 single-core has the i3-4350T at 159 versus 158 for the FX-4320, a 0.6% edge, while Cinebench R23 single-core shows 380 to 378, another 0.5% margin.

The largest spread appears in the multicore tests, but even there the delta never exceeds 0.7%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i3-4350T scores 2692 against the FX-4320’s 2677, a 0.6% difference. The FX-4320 has four physical cores compared to the i3-4350T’s two cores with four threads, yet the Intel processor still manages to win every multicore workload. That is the headline finding: the Intel part’s higher per-core efficiency offsets the AMD chip’s two additional physical cores. The FX-4320 does not win a single head-to-head test in this dataset, with winsA recorded at 5 and winsB at 0.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental design philosophies diverge sharply. The Intel Core i3-4350T uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node built by Intel, with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture on a 32 nm process node built by GlobalFoundries, packing 1,200 million transistors onto a much larger 315 mm² die. The Intel chip’s smaller process node and denser transistor layout explain how it delivers comparable performance while drawing far less power.

Cache layouts also differ significantly. The i3-4350T has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1 cache total, 4 MB of L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part’s larger L2 pool reflects its four-core design, but the shared L3 capacity is identical at 4 MB. The i3-4350T uses dual-channel DDR3 memory with 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FX-4320 also uses dual-channel DDR3 but with a higher 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, giving the AMD chip a theoretical memory throughput advantage that fails to translate into benchmark wins.

The Intel part features PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the FX-4320 is limited to PCIe Gen 2. Integrated graphics also separate the two: the i3-4350T includes Intel HD 4600, whereas the FX-4320 has no onboard GPU and relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the Intel part’s multiplier is locked. The FX-4320 also supports ECC memory, something the i3-4350T does not offer.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i3-4350T wins in every measured category. It takes the multicore tests by margins ranging from 0.5% to 0.7%, and the single-core tests by 0.5% to 0.6%. For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, the i3-4350T is the faster part, however marginally. Its 35 W TDP also makes it the clear choice for compact or thermally constrained builds, since the FX-4320 draws 95 W under load. The Intel chip’s integrated graphics provide a complete platform solution out of the box, whereas the FX-4320 requires a discrete GPU or a motherboard with integrated graphics support.

The AMD FX-4320 does have advantages that the benchmark scores do not capture. Its unlocked multiplier opens the door to overclocking, which could close the gap in single-threaded performance or extend its lead in multi-threaded scenarios if the user has adequate cooling. The higher memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s gives it a theoretical edge in memory-intensive applications, even if Cinebench does not show it. The four physical cores may also behave differently in workloads that are not perfectly threaded, though the data here shows the Intel part handling what is thrown at it.

For users who value an upgrade path within the same platform, the Intel Socket 1150 and AMD Socket AM3+ both represent dead ends at end-of-life. The FX-4320’s larger die and older process node mean it runs hotter and consumes more power for essentially identical performance. The i3-4350T is the more elegant engineering solution, delivering the same results with two fewer cores and a fraction of the power budget.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight where these two parts diverge. The i3-4350T has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The base clock tells a different story: the Intel chip runs at 3.10 GHz with no boost clock, while the AMD chip runs at 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. Despite the AMD part’s higher clock speeds, the Intel part matches or beats it in every test. The TDP difference is stark at 35 W for the i3-4350T versus 95 W for the FX-4320, a 60 W gap that affects cooling requirements and power delivery.

The process node favors Intel at 22 nm versus AMD’s 32 nm. The transistor counts are close at 1,400 million for Intel and 1,200 million for AMD, but the die sizes are not: 177 mm² for Intel versus 315 mm² for AMD. The socket types are incompatible, with the i3-4350T using Intel Socket 1150 and the FX-4320 using AMD Socket AM3+. The i3-4350T has PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the FX-4320 has PCIe Gen 2. The i3-4350T includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics; the FX-4320 has none. Both support DDR3 memory, but the FX-4320’s bandwidth is higher at 29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s. The FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier and ECC support; the i3-4350T has neither. The release dates are also different, with the FX-4320 launching in 2012 and the i3-4350T in 2014.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4350T has an average benchmark score of 926, while the AMD FX-4320 scores 921, a difference of 0.5%.

Q: Does the AMD FX-4320 beat the Intel chip in any Cinebench test?

A: No. The Intel Core i3-4350T wins all five head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 0.5% to 0.7%.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has 4 physical cores, while the Intel Core i3-4350T has 2 physical cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-4350T has a TDP of 35 W, while the AMD FX-4320 has a TDP of 95 W.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the Intel Core i3-4350T’s multiplier is locked.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-4350T includes Intel HD 4600 graphics, while the AMD FX-4320 does not have integrated graphics and relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards.