AMD FX-8320E vs Intel Core i3-4160T Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two desktop processors cleanly. The Intel Core i3-4160T wins every recorded benchmark comparison, taking both head-to-head tests. The AMD FX-8320E, despite having four times the physical cores, does not win a single test in the database. The Intel part leads by 9.5% in Geekbench multicore and by a massive 111.9% in Geekbench singlecore. The FX-8320E’s average benchmark score of 1059 edges out the i3-4160T’s 1043, but that aggregate figure is misleading: it includes only two Geekbench results for AMD, while the Intel chip has seven recorded benchmark scores across Cinebench and Geekbench. The Intel i3-4160T is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing single-threaded performance, lower power draw, and a more modern feature set. The FX-8320E is the option only for those who need eight physical threads for heavily parallel legacy workloads and are willing to accept a 95W TDP versus 35W, plus an older PCIe Gen 2 interface. For most desktop users, the i3-4160T is the better all-round processor.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-4160T wins in every measurable category in this comparison. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 1840 against AMD’s 1681, a 9.5% advantage. The singlecore gap is far wider: 926 versus 437, a 111.9% lead. This means the Intel chip is dramatically superior in tasks that rely on one or two threads, such as older games, web browsing, and office applications. The FX-8320E’s only theoretical advantage is raw thread count: eight cores and eight threads versus two cores and four threads. However, the recorded data shows that advantage does not translate into a benchmark victory. The FX-8320E does have an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking could potentially close the gap, but the database contains no overclocked results. The i3-4160T also offers better platform features: PCIe Gen 3 versus Gen 2, and integrated Intel HD 4400 graphics versus AMD’s reliance on “on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)” for display output. For a compact, low-power build, the i3-4160T is the obvious pick. For a system that needs many physical cores for encoding or compiling, the FX-8320E is the only option with eight cores, but the benchmark data does not support it being faster.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel uses a 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, while AMD uses a 32 nm process with 1,200 million transistors on a much larger 315 mm² die. The Intel chip is built on the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell, and belongs to the Core i3 generation. It has two physical cores with Hyper-Threading, giving four threads. The AMD FX-8320E uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, from the FX (Vishera) generation. It has eight physical cores and eight threads, but each core is less efficient. Intel’s base clock is 3.10 GHz with no boost clock listed. AMD’s base clock is 3.20 GHz with a 4.00 GHz boost clock, yet the singlecore benchmark still shows Intel at more than double the score. Cache configurations differ sharply: Intel has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. AMD has 384 KB total L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. Intel’s total L3 is smaller, but its per-core efficiency compensates. Memory support is identical in type (DDR3) and bus width (dual-channel), but AMD lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s while Intel does not specify one. PCIe support differs: Intel is Gen 3, AMD is Gen 2. Integrated graphics also set them apart: Intel includes HD 4400, while AMD offers graphics only through a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The Intel chip is still in active production, while AMD’s FX-8320E is end-of-life. The TDP difference is substantial: 35W for Intel versus 95W for AMD. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1150 for the i3, AMD Socket AM3+ for the FX.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160T is far faster. It scores 926 in Geekbench singlecore versus 437 for the AMD FX-8320E, a 111.9% lead.

Q: Does the AMD FX-8320E’s eight cores beat the Intel’s two cores in multi-threaded tests?

A: No. The Intel i3-4160T scores 1840 in Geekbench multicore versus 1681 for the FX-8320E, a 9.5% advantage despite having only two physical cores.

Q: Which processor has lower power consumption?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160T has a TDP of 35W, while the AMD FX-8320E has a TDP of 95W.

Q: Can the AMD FX-8320E be overclocked?

A: Yes, the FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier. However, the database contains no overclocked benchmark results, so its overclocked performance is not measured here.

Q: Which processor supports modern PCIe devices better?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160T supports PCIe Gen 3, while the AMD FX-8320E only supports PCIe Gen 2.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160T includes Intel HD 4400. The AMD FX-8320E does not have integrated graphics of its own; it relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two benchmark comparisons, both from Geekbench. In Geekbench multicore, the Intel Core i3-4160T scores 1840 against the AMD FX-8320E’s 1681. That is a 9.5% win for Intel. The result is notable because AMD’s chip has eight physical cores to Intel’s two, yet Intel still wins. This suggests the Haswell architecture’s per-core efficiency more than compensates for the lack of core count. In Geekbench singlecore, the gap is enormous. Intel scores 926, AMD scores 437, giving Intel a 111.9% advantage. This means Intel’s chip is more than twice as fast per thread. Such a difference matters for everyday responsiveness, legacy software, and any application that is not fully multi-threaded.

Beyond the head-to-head, the broader benchmark set for Intel shows its strengths. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-4160T scores 265. In Cinebench R20 multicore, it scores 1106, and in singlecore 156. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 2635, and in singlecore 372. Geekbench multicore is 1840 and singlecore 926. The FX-8320E has only two recorded benchmarks: Geekbench multicore at 1681 and singlecore at 437. The lack of Cinebench results for AMD limits direct comparison, but the two Geekbench tests are consistent with the overall picture. The Intel part’s average benchmark score is 1043, while AMD’s is 1059. That slight AMD edge comes from averaging only two scores, both lower than Intel’s corresponding Geekbench results. The percentile rankings are identical: both sit at the 29th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals further contextualize the two chips. The i3-4160T’s closest competitor is the Intel Pentium Gold G5620, with an average score of 1045 and a delta of -0.2%, meaning the i3 is essentially tied with it. The AMD PRO A10-9700 also sits at 1045, again -0.2%. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U scores 1041, a 0.2% difference. The Intel Core i5-6350HQ scores 1046, a -0.2% delta. The FX-8320E’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-4350 at 1058, a 0.1% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 2500U also scores 1058, a 0.1% delta. The Intel Core i3-4360 scores 1061, a -0.2% delta. The Intel Core i7-2760QM scores 1057, a 0.2% delta. These rival comparisons show both chips are in the same performance tier overall, but the distribution of that performance is radically different. Intel concentrates its strength in single-thread speed; AMD spreads it across many weaker cores.