CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-870 and the AMD FX-4320 are two aging desktop processors that, according to the benchmark data, deliver nearly identical performance despite their fundamentally different designs. The data shows the Core i7-870 winning all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but the margins are remarkably slim, with the largest delta being just 0.7%. This suggests that architectural philosophy, Intel’s high-IPC, multi-threaded approach versus AMD’s high-clock-speed, module-based design, matters less in these specific workloads than the final rendered scores. Both processors sit at the 25th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are entry-level performers by modern standards, yet their average benchmark scores (928 for Intel, 921 for AMD) place them within 0.8% of each other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the consistency of the Intel Core i7-870’s victories. Across all five Cinebench tests, R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core, the Intel part wins, but never by more than a fraction of a percent. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the i7-870 scores 271 against the FX-4320’s 269, a delta of 0.7%. This same 0.7% margin repeats in the Cinebench R20 multi-core test, where the scores are 1132 and 1124, respectively. The single-core results are even closer: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel chip posts 159 versus AMD’s 158, a 0.6% lead, while in Cinebench R23 single-core, the margin shrinks to 0.5% (380 versus 378).

What does this near-tie imply? For multi-threaded rendering, the FX-4320’s higher base clock (4.00 GHz versus 2.93 GHz) and boost clock (4.20 GHz versus 3.60 GHz) might be expected to compensate for its lack of simultaneous multi-threading (4 threads versus 8 threads). Yet the data shows the opposite: the i7-870’s 8 threads give it a consistent, albeit tiny, edge in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 2697, just 20 points ahead of AMD’s 2677, a 0.7% difference. This is a case where the raw clock-speed advantage, roughly 1.07 GHz at base and 0.60 GHz at boost, does not translate into a performance win for AMD. The benchmark results indicate that the i7-870’s per-thread efficiency, stemming from its Nehalem architecture, overcomes the FX-4320’s clock-speed lead in every single test.

The biggest win for Intel, in relative terms, is in the single-core tests, where the margin is 0.5% to 0.6%. This is counterintuitive given AMD’s higher clocks, but it suggests that the FX-4320’s Piledriver cores lose more efficiency per clock cycle than Lynnfield’s cores. The smallest margin is in single-core R23, where a 2-point difference (380 versus 378) is almost within the noise of benchmarking. For AMD, the closest loss is in that same R23 single-core test, while its best relative showing is a 0.7% deficit in multi-core R15 and R20. Overall, the data paints a picture of two CPUs that are, for practical purposes, performance equals in Cinebench, with Intel holding a narrow but unbroken advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-870 has an average benchmark score of 928, while the AMD FX-4320 scores 921. This places the Intel chip 0.8% higher on average, a margin that aligns with its 5-0 sweep in head-to-head tests.

Q: Does the FX-4320’s higher clock speed result in any benchmark wins?

A: No. Despite having a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, compared to the i7-870’s 2.93 GHz and 3.60 GHz, the FX-4320 loses all five Cinebench tests. The data shows that clock speed alone does not guarantee performance, as the i7-870’s architectural efficiency wins out.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of threading capabilities?

A: The Intel Core i7-870 supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading on its 4 cores, while the AMD FX-4320 has 4 threads on its 4 cores. The benchmark results indicate that this 2x thread advantage gives Intel a consistent edge in multi-core tests, albeit by less than 1%.

Q: What is the difference in their average benchmark scores relative to their nearest rivals?

A: The i7-870’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-4288U, has an average score of 927, which is 0.1% lower. The FX-4320’s closest competitor, the AMD PRO A10-9700E, scores 919, also 0.2% lower. Both chips are essentially at the median of their immediate performance cluster.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD FX-4320 comes out ahead?

A: According to the head-to-head data, the FX-4320 wins zero tests. The Intel Core i7-870 wins all five, with deltas ranging from 0.5% to 0.7%.

Q: What do the Cinebench R23 scores indicate about modern workload performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i7-870 scores 2697 and the FX-4320 scores 2677. For single-core, the scores are 380 and 378, respectively. These results show that both processors are closely matched even in newer rendering workloads, with Intel leading by 0.5% to 0.7%.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from radically different design schools. The Intel Core i7-870 is built on the Nehalem architecture, specifically the Lynnfield codename, using a 45 nm process node manufactured by Intel. Its die contains 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The core layout features a 64 KB L1 cache per core and a 256 KB L2 cache per core, with a shared 8 MB L3 cache. This design emphasizes high instructions-per-clock (IPC) and relies on Hyper-Threading to present 8 threads to the operating system from its 4 physical cores.

In contrast, the AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture, under the Vishera codename, fabricated on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The chip packs 1,200 million transistors onto a 315 mm² die, a notably larger transistor count than Intel’s part. Its cache hierarchy is different: 192 KB of L1 cache, a 4 MB L2 cache, and a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The FX-4320 has only 4 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multi-threading. Instead, AMD’s design relies on higher clock speeds, base 4.00 GHz, boost 4.20 GHz, to drive performance, a strategy that the benchmark data suggests is less effective than Intel’s IPC-focused approach.

The process node difference is significant: 45 nm versus 32 nm. The newer 32 nm node allows AMD to pack more transistors, but the i7-870’s smaller transistor count and larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 4 MB) hint at a more efficient cache hierarchy. The FX-4320 also differs in memory bandwidth, listing a figure of 29.9 GB/s, while the i7-870 does not provide a comparable number in the data. Both support DDR3 memory in dual-channel mode, and neither has integrated graphics, though the FX-4320 notes that graphics are available “on certain motherboards (chipset feature)”, a distinction from Intel’s lack of any integrated graphics mention.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification differences between the two processors start with clock speeds. The AMD FX-4320 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-870 operates at 2.93 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. This gives AMD a 1.07 GHz base-clock advantage and a 0.60 GHz boost-clock advantage. Thread counts differ as well: Intel offers 8 threads versus AMD’s 4, despite both having 4 cores.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 1156, while AMD uses Socket AM3+. The process nodes differ (45 nm for Intel, 32 nm for AMD), as do the transistor counts (774 million versus 1,200 million) and die sizes (296 mm² versus 315 mm²). Cache configurations are distinct: Intel has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3; AMD has 192 KB L1 (total), 4 MB L2, and 4 MB shared L3. The FX-4320 lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, a figure absent for the i7-870. PCIe support is also different: Intel provides “Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only),” while AMD offers “Gen 2” without specifying lane count. The part numbers differ (SLBJG versus FD4320WMW4KHK), and the AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Intel chip does not. Release dates are also distinct, with Intel launching in September 2009 and AMD in October 2012, though both are end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i7-870 wins in every Cinebench test, making it the preferred choice for rendering workloads that use these benchmarks. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-core tests, where its 8 threads provide a consistent, if small, lead. For users running Cinebench R15, R20, or R23 multi-core benchmarks, the i7-870’s 0.7% margin means it edges out the FX-4320 in every iteration. In single-core tests, the Intel part also wins, but by a slightly smaller margin (0.5% to 0.6%), suggesting that its per-core efficiency is the deciding factor.

The AMD FX-4320, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has its own strengths that are visible in the specifications. Its higher base and boost clocks (4.00 GHz and 4.20 GHz) make it a more attractive option for workloads that are sensitive to raw clock speed, even if the benchmark data does not show a win. The unlocked multiplier on the FX-4320 offers overclocking potential that the i7-870 lacks, which could allow users to push performance beyond stock levels. The FX-4320 also has a larger L2 cache (4 MB versus 256 KB per core) and a higher transistor count, though these do not translate into benchmark victories. For users prioritizing memory bandwidth, the FX-4320’s listed 29.9 GB/s is a specification advantage, though the i7-870 does not provide a comparable figure.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-870 is the faster processor in Cinebench workloads, winning all five head-to-head tests with margins between 0.5% and 0.7%. Its average benchmark score of 928 versus the FX-4320’s 921, combined with a 5-0 win record, makes it the default choice for anyone comparing these two CPUs based on performance metrics. The i7-870’s 8 threads and 8 MB L3 cache appear to be decisive factors, offsetting AMD’s substantial clock-speed advantage.

However, the AMD FX-4320 is not without merit. Its unlocked multiplier and higher clocks suggest it could be a better candidate for users who plan to overclock, and its newer 32 nm process and higher transistor count indicate a more modern fabrication. The FX-4320’s socket (AM3+) may also have a different upgrade path than Intel’s Socket 1156, though neither platform is current. For a user who values raw clock speed and overclocking flexibility over out-of-the-box Cinebench performance, the FX-4320 is a reasonable alternative, but the benchmark evidence points to the i7-870 as the superior chip for rendering tasks. The verdict is clear: pick the Intel Core i7-870 for the best measured performance, or the AMD FX-4320 if overclocking and clock-speed headroom are your priorities.