AMD FX-4320 vs Intel Core i5-4330M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel Core i5-4330M across every Cinebench workload in the comparison. The AMD FX-4320 does not claim a single win in any of the five head-to-head tests, with the Intel part taking all five.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel Core i5-4330M scores 274 against the AMD FX-4320's 269. That is a 1.9% lead for the Intel chip. The same 1.9% delta repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Intel scores 1145 and the AMD scores 1124. This consistency suggests the performance gap is not workload-specific; it is a stable, measurable difference across rendering tasks.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel Core i5-4330M records 161 points, while the AMD FX-4320 records 158 points. The delta is again 1.9%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel part posts 385 versus 378 for the AMD, preserving the identical 1.9% margin. The repeatability of this exact percentage across all five tests is notable; it indicates that the architectural efficiency advantage of the Intel design scales uniformly, regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded.

Looking at the broader Cinebench R23 multicore numbers, the Intel Core i5-4330M reaches 2727, while the AMD FX-4320 trails at 2677. A 50-point gap on a scale that measures in the thousands may seem small, but it is consistent with the rest of the data. The Intel part's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 938, compared to 921 for the AMD FX-4320. Both processors sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall, but the Intel chip is consistently at the upper edge of that tier.

The nearest rivals for each part put these scores in context. The Intel Core i5-4330M's average score of 938 places it just 0.4% below the Intel Core i3-8145U (941), 0.4% below the Intel Core i7-2715QE (942), 0.5% below the AMD Athlon X4 860K (943), and 0.7% below the AMD A8-7670K (944). For the AMD FX-4320, its 921 average sits 0.2% above both the AMD PRO A10-9700E (919) and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G (919), 0.4% above the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U (917), and 0.4% below the Intel Celeron G6900TE (925). The head-to-head margin of 1.9% between the two reviewed parts is larger than the gaps to several of their closest neighbors, which reinforces that the Intel part holds a real, if modest, edge.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The Intel Core i5-4330M is built on the Haswell architecture, using a 22 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, manufactured on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries. This node difference directly impacts die size and transistor density: the Intel chip packs 1,400 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, while the AMD chip uses 1,200 million transistors across a much larger 315 mm² die. The Intel part achieves higher transistor count in less than half the physical area, which is a direct consequence of the more advanced 22 nm lithography.

Core and thread configurations differ significantly. The Intel Core i5-4330M has 2 physical cores with 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach the thread count. The AMD FX-4320 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. Despite having twice the physical core count, the AMD part cannot translate that into a benchmark win, which points to the Intel architecture's superior per-core efficiency. The Intel chip's base clock is 2.80 GHz with a boost of 3.80 GHz, while the AMD chip runs at a much higher 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The AMD part's clock advantage of over 1 GHz in base frequency is not enough to overcome the Intel architecture's instruction-level advantages.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Intel Core i5-4330M uses 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The AMD FX-4320 has a total of 192 KB of L1 cache, 4 MB of L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part offers more total cache in L2 and L3, but the Intel part's per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger relative to its core count. Both support DDR3 memory, though the AMD FX-4320 specifies dual-channel memory with a 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth rating, while the Intel part lists no memory bus or bandwidth figure in the database.

Thermal design power differs dramatically. The Intel Core i5-4330M is rated at 37 W, while the AMD FX-4320 is rated at 95 W. This is a 58 W difference, which reflects the Intel part's mobile market segment versus the AMD part's desktop positioning. The Intel chip also integrates Intel HD 5000 graphics, while the AMD FX-4320 has no integrated graphics of its own, relying instead on a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The Intel part is not multiplier unlocked, while the AMD FX-4320 is multiplier unlocked, offering overclocking flexibility that the Intel chip lacks. The AMD part is marked as end-of-life production status, and its part number is FD4320WMW4KHK.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-4330M scores 2727 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 1.9% higher than the AMD FX-4320's 2677.

Q: Does the AMD FX-4320 win any benchmark against the Intel Core i5-4330M?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD FX-4320 with zero wins across all five Cinebench tests, while the Intel Core i5-4330M wins all five.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two?

A: The Intel Core i5-4330M has an average benchmark score of 938, while the AMD FX-4320 has an average score of 921. Both sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-4330M is rated at 37 W, while the AMD FX-4320 is rated at 95 W.

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has 4 physical cores with 4 threads. The Intel Core i5-4330M has 2 physical cores with 4 threads.

Q: Is the AMD FX-4320 overclockable?

A: Yes, the AMD FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core i5-4330M is not multiplier unlocked.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core i5-4330M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for the Intel and 4.00 GHz for the AMD. Boost clocks are 3.80 GHz for the Intel and 4.20 GHz for the AMD. Thermal design power is 37 W versus 95 W. The Intel part uses an Intel Socket G3, while the AMD part uses an AMD Socket AM3+.

Architecturally, the Intel chip is Haswell on a 22 nm node, while the AMD chip is Piledriver on a 32 nm node. The Intel die is 118 mm² with 1,400 million transistors; the AMD die is 315 mm² with 1,200 million transistors. Cache layouts differ: the Intel has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. The AMD has 192 KB total L1, 4 MB L2, and 4 MB shared L3. The AMD specifies dual-channel memory with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth; the Intel lists no memory bus or bandwidth. The Intel has integrated Intel HD 5000 graphics; the AMD relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The AMD FX-4320 is multiplier unlocked, has a part number (FD4320WMW4KHK), and is end-of-life; the Intel has no part number and no production status listed. Market segments are mobile for Intel and desktop for AMD. Release dates are 2013-08-31 for the Intel and 2012-10-22 for the AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-4330M wins in every measured benchmark category. It is ahead in Cinebench R15 multicore (274 vs 269), Cinebench R20 multicore (1145 vs 1124), Cinebench R20 single-core (161 vs 158), Cinebench R23 multicore (2727 vs 2677), and Cinebench R23 single-core (385 vs 378). The 1.9% margin is uniform across all tests. The Intel part also wins on efficiency metrics: it delivers this performance at a 37 W TDP versus the AMD's 95 W, meaning the Intel chip achieves its scores with far lower thermal requirements. The Intel part also offers integrated graphics, which the AMD lacks, making it a more self-contained solution for systems without a discrete GPU.

The AMD FX-4320 does not win any benchmark in the recorded data. Its advantages are structural rather than performance-related. It has 4 physical cores, which may be relevant for workloads that schedule threads to physical cores without relying on SMT. Its base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost of 4.20 GHz are substantially higher than the Intel's 2.80 GHz and 3.80 GHz, which could matter in scenarios where raw clock speed is the limiting factor, though the benchmark data shows this does not translate into a win. The AMD part also has a larger total cache pool (4 MB L2 plus 4 MB L3 versus the Intel's per-core L2 and 3 MB L3). The unlocked multiplier on the AMD part means it can be overclocked, potentially closing or reversing the gap in the hands of a user willing to accept higher power draw and heat. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is specified at 29.9 GB/s, while the Intel part has no comparable figure.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core i5-4330M is the better-performing processor in this comparison. It wins all five head-to-head benchmark tests, each by the same 1.9% margin. Its average benchmark score of 938 exceeds the AMD FX-4320's 921. The Intel part achieves this with a 37 W TDP, less than half of the AMD's 95 W, and includes integrated graphics that the AMD part does not have. For users who prioritize out-of-the-box performance, lower power draw, and a self-contained feature set, the Intel Core i5-4330M is the choice.

The AMD FX-4320 is not without a case for selection, but that case rests on factors outside the benchmark results. Its 4 physical cores, unlocked multiplier, and higher clock speeds offer overclocking headroom that could narrow or eliminate the performance gap in the hands of an enthusiast. Its larger L2 and L3 caches provide more on-die storage. The AMD part also sits in the desktop market segment, which may align with a user's platform preferences, particularly if they already have an AM3+ motherboard. However, the recorded benchmark data shows no scenario where the AMD FX-4320 outperforms the Intel Core i5-4330M. For a user who wants the higher documented performance and lower power consumption, the Intel part is the selection. For a user who values the AMD's overclocking capability and physical core count, and who is willing to accept a 95 W TDP and zero benchmark wins, the FX-4320 remains a viable alternative.