CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4600U and the AMD FX-4320 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their benchmark data places them within a single percentage point of each other in average score. The i7-4600U, a 2-core Haswell mobile part with a 15 W TDP, and the FX-4320, a 4-core Piledriver desktop chip with a 95 W TDP, both land at the 25th percentile among all CPUs. The data shows the FX-4320 winning every single head-to-head benchmark, but the i7-4600U counters with a far more efficient design and integrated graphics, making the choice entirely dependent on the use case.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-4320 is the clear performance winner across every benchmark in the comparison. It wins all five head-to-head tests, with a consistent advantage of roughly 14% over the Intel chip. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the FX-4320 scores 269 against the i7-4600U's 232, a delta of -13.8%. That margin holds steady across Cinebench R20 multicore (1124 vs 968, -13.9%), R20 singlecore (158 vs 136, -13.9%), R23 multicore (2677 vs 2306, -13.9%), and R23 singlecore (378 vs 325, -14%). The FX-4320's four physical cores at a 4.00 GHz base clock and 4.20 GHz boost clock give it a decisive edge in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. Its unlocked multiplier also makes it a candidate for overclocking, a feature the i7-4600U lacks.

The Intel Core i7-4600U wins in every category that does not involve raw compute speed. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the FX-4320's 95 W, making it suitable for thin, fanless mobile designs. The i7-4600U integrates Intel HD 5000 graphics, whereas the FX-4320 relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards for any display output. The i7-4600U's 22 nm process node from Intel contrasts with the FX-4320's 32 nm GlobalFoundries node, and the Intel die is 118 mm² versus 315 mm² for the AMD part. The i7-4600U also has a newer release date, launching in 2013, roughly a year after the FX-4320 in 2012. For users prioritizing power efficiency, integrated graphics, or a smaller physical footprint, the i7-4600U is the only viable option in this pairing.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD FX-4320 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. The FX-4320 delivers a 13.9% higher multicore score in Cinebench R23 and a 14% higher singlecore score in the same test. Any user whose primary concern is compute performance, whether for rendering, compiling, or general desktop responsiveness, should choose the FX-4320. Its four cores and 4.00 GHz base clock provide a substantial advantage over the i7-4600U's two cores with Hyper-Threading.

The Intel Core i7-4600U is the correct choice for a completely different set of priorities. The data shows it is a mobile part on an Intel BGA 1168 socket, designed for laptops and ultrabooks. Its 15 W TDP allows for passive cooling in many chassis, and its integrated Intel HD 5000 graphics eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The i7-4600U also supports DDR3 memory with ECC disabled, matching the FX-4320's memory support, but the Intel part does so at a fraction of the power draw. Users who need a low-power, compact, all-in-one solution should pick the i7-4600U.

There is no middle ground in this comparison. The FX-4320 wins on performance; the i7-4600U wins on efficiency and integration. The FX-4320 is end-of-life and requires an AM3+ motherboard with a discrete GPU, while the i7-4600U is a mobile chip soldered to the board. The benchmark data does not suggest any scenario where the i7-4600U outperforms the FX-4320, so the verdict is a straight split by use case: desktop power versus mobile efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single advantage for the AMD FX-4320 appears in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the FX-4320 scores 378 against the i7-4600U's 325, a 14% lead. This is notable because the i7-4600U's boost clock of 3.30 GHz is significantly lower than the FX-4320's 4.20 GHz, and the single-core result reflects that frequency advantage. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 singlecore, where the FX-4320 posts 158 versus 136, again a 13.9% margin. Despite the i7-4600U's newer Haswell architecture, the FX-4320's raw clock speed wins single-threaded workloads.

The multicore results tell the same story with a slightly different nuance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the FX-4320 scores 269 against 232, a 13.8% delta. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the scores are 1124 and 968, a 13.9% delta. The FX-4320 has four physical cores to the i7-4600U's two cores and four threads, so the multicore advantage is expected. However, the margin is nearly identical to the single-core margin, suggesting that the i7-4600U's Hyper-Threading does not close the gap. The FX-4320's 4 MB L2 cache and 4 MB shared L3 cache provide ample data for its four cores, while the i7-4600U has 256 KB L2 per core and 4 MB shared L3.

The most recent benchmark, Cinebench R23 multicore, shows the FX-4320 at 2677 versus the i7-4600U at 2306, a 13.9% difference. This is the largest absolute score gap in the comparison, with a difference of 371 points. The i7-4600U does manage a respectable showing given its 15 W TDP, but the data does not indicate any test where it closes the gap below 13.8%. The FX-4320 wins all five head-to-head tests, and its victory margins are remarkably consistent between 13.8% and 14%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD FX-4320 wins single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, it scores 378 versus the Intel Core i7-4600U's 325, a 14% advantage. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R20 singlecore, with 158 versus 136.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-4600U win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD FX-4320 winning all five tests, with zero wins for the Intel part. The closest margin is 13.8% in Cinebench R15 multicore.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i7-4600U has a TDP of 15 W, while the AMD FX-4320 has a TDP of 95 W. The Intel part consumes 80 W less at rated thermal design power, making it suitable for mobile devices.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-4600U includes Intel HD 5000 integrated graphics. The AMD FX-4320 does not have integrated graphics; it relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards for display output.

Q: Are these processors comparable in overall benchmark average?

A: Yes. The Intel Core i7-4600U has an average benchmark score of 931, while the AMD FX-4320 averages 921. The i7-4600U is 0.3% above its nearest rival, and the FX-4320 is 0.2% above its nearest rival, placing both at the 25th percentile.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has 4 physical cores. The Intel Core i7-4600U has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. Both processors support 4 threads total.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-4600U is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-ULT codename, using a 22 nm process node from Intel. It integrates 1,300 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The chip features 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. The i7-4600U is a mobile part on the Intel BGA 1168 socket, with a 15 W TDP. It supports DDR3 memory without ECC and includes Intel HD 5000 integrated graphics. The multiplier is locked, and the release date is August 2013.

The AMD FX-4320 is built on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, using a 32 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It integrates 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The chip features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB L1, 4 MB L2, and 4 MB shared L3. The FX-4320 is a desktop part on the AMD Socket AM3+, with a 95 W TDP. It supports DDR3 memory in dual-channel mode with 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth, and it does not support ECC memory. The PCIe interface is Gen 2. The multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking. The FX-4320 is end-of-life, with a release date of October 2012 and part number FD4320WMW4KHK.

The most significant architectural difference is the process node: Intel's 22 nm versus GlobalFoundries' 32 nm. This explains the dramatic TDP gap of 15 W versus 95 W. The FX-4320's larger die size of 315 mm² versus 118 mm² reflects both the older process and the additional two physical cores. The i7-4600U compensates for its two-core design with Hyper-Threading, but the data shows that does not match the FX-4320's four native cores. The FX-4320 also has a higher clock speed at both base and boost, which drives its single-core advantage. The i7-4600U's integrated graphics and mobile socket are the defining features that set it apart, while the FX-4320's unlocked multiplier and desktop socket appeal to overclockers and system builders. Both chips support DDR3 memory, but the FX-4320 offers dual-channel bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, a specification the i7-4600U lacks in the data. Neither chip supports ECC memory. The FX-4320's production status is end-of-life, while the i7-4600U's status is not listed in the data.