AMD FX-4320 vs Intel Core i7-940 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-940 runs at 2.93 GHz. The AMD part also boosts to 4.20 GHz compared to 3.20 GHz for the Intel chip.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD FX-4320 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests, but by a narrow margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 2677 versus 2626 for the Intel, a 1.9% difference. The Intel part has 8 threads versus 4 for AMD, yet still trails slightly.

Q: What are the architecture and manufacturing differences?

A: The AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture on a 32 nm process with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-940 uses the Nehalem architecture on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the AMD FX-4320 and Intel Core i7-940 have ECC memory support set to false. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Q: What are the cache configurations?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has 192 KB L1 cache, 4 MB L2 cache, and 4 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i7-940 has 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, and 8 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FX-4320 has an average benchmark score of 921, placing it at the 25th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i7-940 has an average score of 903, sitting at the 24th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD FX-4320 is built on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, using a 32 nm process manufactured by GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors into a 315 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-940 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, on a 45 nm process from Intel's own fabs, with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The AMD chip is nearly double the transistor count, but the Intel chip achieves this with a significantly smaller die, reflecting the process node advantage at the time.

Threading is where the architectures diverge sharply. The FX-4320 offers 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning each core handles a single thread. The i7-940 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, using Hyper-Threading to process two threads per core. Despite this 2x thread advantage for Intel, the benchmark data shows AMD consistently winning, which suggests the Piledriver cores are more efficient per thread in the tested Cinebench workloads.

Cache hierarchies also reflect different strategies. The AMD chip uses a unified 192 KB L1, a 4 MB L2, and a 4 MB shared L3. The Intel chip allocates 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, with a larger 8 MB shared L3. The Intel design dedicates more cache per core, while AMD shares a smaller pool across all cores. The data suggests the AMD cache arrangement, despite being smaller overall, does not hinder performance in these specific tests.

Another architectural difference is the memory controller. The FX-4320 uses dual-channel DDR3 with a measured memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The i7-940 uses triple-channel DDR3, though the recorded data does not list a bandwidth figure for it. The triple-channel configuration gives Intel a theoretical memory advantage, but the benchmark results do not reflect this translating into higher Cinebench scores.

The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked. This means the FX-4320 can be overclocked more freely, though the data provided does not include any overclocking results. Both processors are end-of-life products, and both support PCIe Gen 2. The AMD chip can use integrated graphics on certain motherboards as a chipset feature, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-4320 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. That is 5 wins out of 5 tests. The Intel Core i7-940 does not win a single test. This is a clear sweep, but the margins are extremely narrow, ranging from 1.9% to 2.2%.

The AMD processor is most useful for users who want slightly better single-threaded performance. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD scores 378 versus 370 for Intel, a 2.2% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The AMD part also leads in multi-threaded tests, but by a smaller 1.9% margin. So the AMD advantage is slightly more pronounced in single-threaded workloads.

The Intel Core i7-940, despite losing all tests, still has a role. Its 8 threads make it a more capable multitasking processor in theory, though the recorded benchmarks do not show this advantage. The Intel chip also has a larger shared L3 cache at 8 MB versus 4 MB, which could benefit workloads that repeatedly access a large working set. The data does not include such tests, so this remains speculative.

For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the AMD FX-4320 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For users who value thread count for other types of parallel work, the Intel part offers more threads, but the benchmarks provided do not confirm any performance benefit from that configuration.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several specification fields. The AMD FX-4320 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i7-940 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clock speeds are 4.00 GHz for AMD and 2.93 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 4.20 GHz for AMD and 3.20 GHz for Intel. The TDP is 95 watts for AMD and 130 watts for Intel, making the AMD chip more power-efficient on paper.

Sockets differ completely: AMD uses Socket AM3+, while Intel uses Socket 1366. The process nodes are 32 nm for AMD and 45 nm for Intel. Transistor counts are 1,200 million for AMD and 731 million for Intel. Die sizes are 315 mm² for AMD and 263 mm² for Intel. The AMD chip is larger in both dimensions.

Cache configurations differ as noted: L1 is 192 KB for AMD versus 64 KB per core for Intel. L2 is 4 MB for AMD versus 256 KB per core for Intel. L3 is 4 MB shared for AMD versus 8 MB shared for Intel. Memory bus is dual-channel for AMD and triple-channel for Intel. The AMD chip lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Intel part has no bandwidth figure recorded.

The AMD FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Core i7-940 is locked. Release dates are October 2012 for AMD and November 2008 for Intel, a gap of roughly four years. The AMD part has a part number of FD4320WMW4KHK, while the Intel part carries SLBCK. Both are desktop parts, both are end-of-life, and both have ECC support set to false.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD FX-4320 scores 269 against 264 for the Intel Core i7-940, a 1.9% delta. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD scores 1124 against 1102, a 2% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD scores 158 against 155, a 1.9% delta. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 2677 against 2626, a 1.9% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD scores 378 against 370, a 2.2% delta.

The single-core results are revealing. The AMD FX-4320 has a higher base clock by over 1 GHz, and that translates directly into a 2.2% lead in the newest single-threaded test. The Intel chip cannot match the AMD clock speed, and its older Nehalem architecture does not compensate with higher instructions per clock in these tests.

The multi-core results are more surprising given the thread count difference. The Intel i7-940 has 8 threads versus 4 for the AMD, yet it still loses by roughly 2%. This suggests the AMD Piledriver cores, running at 4.00 to 4.20 GHz, are delivering more useful work per thread than the Intel Nehalem cores at 2.93 to 3.20 GHz. The AMD processor's 32 nm process node also gives it a manufacturing advantage, allowing higher clocks at a lower 95 watt TDP.

The average benchmark scores align with the head-to-head results. The AMD FX-4320 has an average score of 921, while the Intel i7-940 averages 903. The nearest rivals for the AMD chip include the AMD PRO A10-9700E at 919 (0.2% slower), the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G at 919 (0.2% slower), and the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U at 917 (0.4% slower). On the Intel side, the nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-5350U at 903 (0% difference), the Intel Core i5-4258U at 902 (0.1% slower), and the Intel Core i3-4330T at 908 (0.6% faster).

These rival comparisons show how tightly grouped these two processors are in the overall CPU landscape. The AMD FX-4320 sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel i7-940 sits at the 24th percentile. The 18-point difference in average score is small, but it is consistent across every recorded benchmark.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: the AMD FX-4320 wins every benchmark in this comparison. It is faster in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests, across R15, R20, and R23 versions. The margins are narrow, between 1.9% and 2.2%, but they are consistent. No test shows the Intel Core i7-940 ahead.

The AMD FX-4320 is the better choice for users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads. Its higher clock speeds, newer architecture, and smaller process node give it a measurable edge. The fact that it achieves this while using a 95 watt TDP versus 130 watts for the Intel chip makes the AMD part more efficient as well.

The Intel Core i7-940, despite losing all recorded tests, still offers 8 threads versus 4. For workloads that specifically benefit from more threads, the Intel part has theoretical headroom, but the data does not confirm any such benefit. The larger 8 MB L3 cache on the Intel chip could also favor certain cache-sensitive workloads, but again, no recorded test reflects this.

Users who prioritize single-threaded performance should pick the AMD FX-4320, as it shows the largest lead in the Cinebench R23 single-core test. Users who prioritize multi-threaded performance should also pick the AMD FX-4320, as it wins all multi-core tests despite having half the thread count. There is no benchmark in the database where the Intel Core i7-940 comes out ahead.

The percentile rankings confirm the overall picture. The AMD FX-4320 sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, one point above the Intel i7-940 at the 24th percentile. The average benchmark scores are 921 for AMD and 903 for Intel. The AMD processor is the faster part, and the data supports that conclusion without qualification.