CPU Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous outcome: the AMD FX-4320 wins every head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i5-4288U across all five tested Cinebench workloads. The FX-4320's advantage ranges from 16.4% to 16.7% depending on the specific test, making it the clear performance choice in multi-threaded and single-threaded scenarios alike. However, the two processors occupy nearly identical positions in the overall performance distribution, both sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are remarkably close (927 for the Intel, 921 for the AMD). This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the Intel part's average includes Geekbench results, where it posts a 1745 multi-core and 896 single-core score, while the AMD part lacks Geekbench data entirely.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in Cinebench-style workloads, the AMD FX-4320 is the superior choice, delivering consistent double-digit percentage wins. The Intel Core i5-4288U, by contrast, offers a dramatically lower thermal envelope, 28W versus 95W, and integrates Intel HD 5100 graphics, making it the more practical option for compact or thermally constrained systems. The data suggests a straightforward selection: choose the FX-4320 for desktop performance, choose the i5-4288U for mobile form factors or low-power builds where its integrated graphics and 28W TDP provide capabilities the AMD part cannot match without external hardware.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core i5-4288U is built on Intel's 22 nm Haswell architecture, fabricated at Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 118 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. It contains 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, and its cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. The AMD FX-4320 uses AMD's 32 nm Piledriver architecture (codename Vishera), manufactured by GlobalFoundries, with a much larger 315 mm² die but fewer transistors at 1,200 million. It offers 4 physical cores with 4 threads, no SMT, and a cache layout of 192 KB L1, 4 MB L2, and 4 MB shared L3.

The process node difference (22 nm versus 32 nm) explains much of the thermal disparity: the Intel part consumes 28W while the AMD part consumes 95W. The Intel processor is a mobile part on the Intel BGA 1168 socket, while the AMD FX-4320 is a desktop part on AMD Socket AM3+ with an unlocked multiplier. The AMD chip supports PCIe Gen 2 and dual-channel memory with a 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth figure, whereas the Intel chip's PCIe and memory bandwidth specifications are not provided in the data. Both support DDR3 memory, and neither supports ECC.

The integrated graphics situation is particularly divergent. The Intel Core i5-4288U includes Intel HD 5100 graphics as an on-die feature, whereas the AMD FX-4320's graphics capability is described as "on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)", meaning it relies on the platform rather than the CPU. This is a critical differentiator for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD FX-4320 dominates every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 269 against the Intel's 225, a 16.4% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: AMD at 1124 versus Intel at 939, a 16.5% edge. Single-core performance follows the same trend, in R20 single-core, AMD leads 158 to 132 (16.5%), and in R23 single-core, AMD leads 378 to 315 (16.7%). The R23 multi-core result shows AMD at 2677 versus Intel at 2237, another 16.4% win.

These consistent deltas across all five tests, ranging narrowly from 16.4% to 16.7%, indicate that the AMD part's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general performance lead. The FX-4320's higher base clock (4.00 GHz versus 2.60 GHz) and boost clock (4.20 GHz versus 3.10 GHz) likely contribute to this uniform margin, although the architectural differences in IPC between Haswell and Piledriver are not directly quantified in the data. Notably, the Intel part has no wins in any head-to-head test, with winsA equal to 0 and winsB equal to 5.

The Intel's Geekbench results, 1745 multi-core and 896 single-core, are not part of the head-to-head comparison because the AMD lacks corresponding Geekbench data. This makes direct cross-benchmark comparisons impossible, but the Cinebench suite provides sufficient evidence of the AMD's superiority in rendering and compute tasks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel Core i5-4288U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz versus 4.00 GHz, with boost clocks of 3.10 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. The TDP gap is massive: 28W for Intel versus 95W for AMD. Sockets differ entirely, Intel BGA 1168 versus AMD Socket AM3+. The architectures are Haswell (22 nm, Intel foundry) versus Piledriver (32 nm, GlobalFoundries). Transistor counts are 1,400 million versus 1,200 million, and die sizes are 118 mm² versus 315 mm².

Cache configurations are also distinct: the Intel part uses per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) with 3 MB shared L3, while the AMD part lists aggregate L1 at 192 KB and L2 at 4 MB with 4 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the AMD specifies dual-channel with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel lists no memory bus or bandwidth data. Integrated graphics: Intel HD 5100 on-die versus AMD's chipset-dependent solution. The market segments differ (Mobile versus Desktop), the AMD is end-of-life while the Intel's production status is not specified, and the AMD has an unlocked multiplier while the Intel does not. Part numbers are SR189 for Intel and FD4320WMW4KHK for AMD. Release dates are June 3, 2013 for Intel and October 22, 2012 for AMD.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD FX-4320 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 269 versus the Intel's 225 (16.4% ahead). In R20 multi-core, it scores 1124 versus 939 (16.5% ahead). In R23 multi-core, it scores 2677 versus 2237 (16.4% ahead).

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-4288U win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the Intel part records zero wins (winsA: 0) across all five Cinebench tests, while the AMD FX-4320 wins all five (winsB: 5). The Intel does have Geekbench scores (1745 multi-core, 896 single-core), but the AMD has no Geekbench data for comparison.

Q: How do their overall performance rankings compare?

A: Both processors sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel's average benchmark score is 927, while the AMD's is 921, a difference of only 0.6%. The Intel's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-870 at 928 (0.1% delta), while the AMD's nearest rival is the AMD PRO A10-9700E at 919 (0.2% delta).

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Intel Core i5-4288U has a 28W TDP, while the AMD FX-4320 has a 95W TDP. This represents a more than threefold difference in thermal design power, making the Intel part significantly more suitable for power-constrained or mobile applications.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core i5-4288U includes Intel HD 5100 graphics on-die. The AMD FX-4320 does not have integrated graphics on the CPU itself; its graphics capability is described as available "on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)," meaning it depends on the platform rather than the processor.

Q: Which processor offers more cores and threads?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core i5-4288U has 2 physical cores and 4 threads (via Hyper-Threading). Despite the Intel's thread count matching the AMD's, the AMD's higher clocks and additional physical cores contribute to its performance lead in all tested workloads.