AMD FX-4320 vs Intel Core i3-8145U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i3-8145U across all five shared benchmark tests. The AMD FX-4320 does not win a single head-to-head comparison in this database. The largest discrepancies appear in multi-core workloads, where the Intel part maintains a consistent lead of roughly 16% across every generation of the Cinebench test suite.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Core i3-8145U scores 322 against the AMD FX-4320's 269, a delta of -16.5% for the AMD part. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core: Intel scores 1342, AMD scores 1124, a -16.2% gap. The same -16.2% delta appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where Intel posts 3196 and AMD posts 2677. The consistency of this gap across three different Cinebench versions suggests the difference is structural rather than workload-specific.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the sample size is smaller. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel Core i3-8145U scores 189 versus the AMD FX-4320's 158, a -16.4% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 451 versus AMD's 378, again a -16.2% gap. The Intel part also has a recorded Cinebench R15 single-core score of 148.5, but the AMD FX-4320 has no corresponding entry for that test in the database.

The aggregate picture is unambiguous. The AMD FX-4320's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 921, while the Intel Core i3-8145U averages 941. That puts the AMD part at roughly 2% behind on average, though the head-to-head deltas show a wider 16% gap on the shared tests. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-2715QE (average 942, -0.1% delta) and the AMD Athlon X4 860K (average 943, -0.2% delta), placing it in a tightly clustered performance band. The AMD FX-4320 sits among rivals like the AMD PRO A10-9700E (average 919, +0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G (average 919, +0.2% delta), with the Intel Celeron G6900TE slightly ahead at 925 (-0.4% delta).

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Intel Core i3-8145U is the faster processor in every benchmark where both were measured. It leads by approximately 16% in all five head-to-head tests, whether single-core or multi-core, across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The AMD FX-4320 has no recorded wins in this comparison.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in Cinebench-style workloads, the Intel Core i3-8145U is the appropriate choice. Its single-core advantage of 16.2% to 16.4% is particularly notable, as that margin typically translates to better responsiveness in lightly threaded applications. The multi-core advantage is equally consistent at 16.2%, meaning the Intel part's two physical cores with four threads outperform the AMD part's four physical cores with four threads in every multi-core test recorded.

The AMD FX-4320 does retain one structural advantage: it has four physical cores versus the Intel part's two. In workloads that scale with physical core count rather than total thread count, the AMD part may behave differently, but the recorded Cinebench data does not reflect any such benefit. The AMD part's average benchmark score of 921 places it at the 25th percentile of all CPUs in the database, identical to the Intel part's 25th percentile ranking. Neither chip distinguishes itself from the broader field, but within this direct comparison, the Intel Core i3-8145U is the performance leader.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture, built on the Vishera codename, and represents AMD's FX line from the 2012 generation. It is manufactured on a 32 nm process node at GlobalFoundries, with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-8145U uses the Whiskey Lake architecture, specifically Whiskey Lake-U, and belongs to Intel's Core i3 generation from 2018. It is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel, though the database does not record transistor count or die size for this part.

The cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD FX-4320 has a 192 KB L1 cache, a 4 MB L2 cache, and a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i3-8145U lists its L1 cache as 64 KB per core and its L2 cache as 256 KB per core, with a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The AMD part's larger aggregate L2 cache (4 MB versus roughly 512 KB per core, though the core counts differ) reflects its older, more cache-heavy design. The Intel part compensates with a newer process node and architectural improvements.

Platform features diverge as well. The AMD FX-4320 uses AMD Socket AM3+ and supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Intel Core i3-8145U uses Intel BGA 1528 and supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Neither part supports ECC memory. The AMD part offers PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel part provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU. The AMD FX-4320 has integrated graphics only as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, whereas the Intel Core i3-8145U includes UHD Graphics 620 directly.

The AMD FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier, making it a candidate for overclocking. The Intel Core i3-8145U has a locked multiplier. The AMD part targets the desktop market, while the Intel part targets mobile. Both are end-of-life products in the database.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several key differences. The AMD FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-8145U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part runs at a 4.00 GHz base clock with a 4.20 GHz boost clock; the Intel part runs at a 2.10 GHz base clock with a 3.90 GHz boost clock. The thermal design power differs dramatically: the AMD FX-4320 is rated at 95 watts, while the Intel Core i3-8145U is rated at 15 watts. The Intel part's lower TDP aligns with its mobile positioning.

Memory support differs: the AMD FX-4320 uses DDR3, the Intel Core i3-8145U uses DDR4. The memory bandwidth figures follow accordingly, with the Intel part rated at 38.4 GB/s versus the AMD part's 29.9 GB/s. The PCIe generation differs (Gen 2 for AMD, Gen 3 for Intel), and the integrated graphics situation is entirely different, as noted above.

The AMD FX-4320 was released on 2012-10-22, while the Intel Core i3-8145U was released on 2018-09-30. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $281. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The AMD part's part number is FD4320WMW4KHK; the Intel part's part number is SRFFZSRD1WSRD1V.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i3-8145U scores 3196 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD FX-4320 scores 2677. The Intel part leads by 16.2%.

Q: Does the AMD FX-4320 win any benchmark against the Intel Core i3-8145U?

A: No. Across the five head-to-head tests recorded (Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core), the Intel Core i3-8145U wins all five.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has an average benchmark score of 921, and the Intel Core i3-8145U has an average benchmark score of 941. Both sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core i3-8145U has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-8145U has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The AMD part's base clock is also higher at 4.00 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The AMD FX-4320 is rated at 95 watts TDP, and the Intel Core i3-8145U is rated at 15 watts TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-8145U wins every recorded benchmark in this comparison. Its strengths are most visible in single-core performance, where it leads by 16.2% to 16.4% depending on the Cinebench version. That margin in single-threaded workloads makes it the better choice for everyday interactive tasks, lightweight productivity software, and any application that relies heavily on a single thread. Its multi-core lead of 16.2% is equally consistent, so it also handles multi-threaded rendering workloads in Cinebench more effectively despite having only two physical cores. The Intel part's higher memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s) and newer DDR4 support further reinforce its position for general-purpose computing.

The AMD FX-4320's case rests on structural attributes rather than benchmark results. It has four physical cores, which could matter in specific workloads that are sensitive to physical core count rather than thread count, though the database records no such benchmark advantage. Its unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking, potentially narrowing the performance gap in the hands of an enthusiast, but the recorded scores reflect stock operation. The higher base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz give it a clock-speed advantage on paper, but the benchmark data shows that advantage does not translate into a win in any measured test. The AMD part also uses the AM3+ socket, which may be relevant for users with existing AM3+ motherboards, and its chipset-based integrated graphics option is a platform consideration rather than a CPU feature.

For most users, the data supports choosing the Intel Core i3-8145U on performance grounds. For users with legacy AM3+ platforms or specific overclocking goals, the AMD FX-4320 remains a viable alternative, but the recorded benchmarks offer no evidence that it outperforms the Intel part in any tested scenario.