AMD FX-8320E vs Intel Core i3-4170T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data between the Intel Core i3-4170T and the AMD FX-8320E is limited to two Geekbench tests, but the results are decisive. In Geekbench multicore, the i3-4170T scores 1945 against the FX-8320E's 1681, a 15.7% advantage for the Intel part. This is notable because the AMD chip fields eight physical cores, while the Intel part has just two cores and four threads. The margin suggests that the i3-4170T's architecture extracts more usable throughput from fewer resources, at least in this workload. The single-core test is where the gap becomes cavernous: the i3-4170T scores 972, while the FX-8320E manages only 437. That is a 122.4% lead for Intel, meaning the i3-4170T more than doubles the per-core performance of the AMD processor. Such a lopsided result implies that any workload relying on single-threaded responsiveness will heavily favor the Intel chip.

The overall benchmark averages tell a similar story. The i3-4170T holds an average benchmark score of 1072, placing it at the 30th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The FX-8320E averages 1059, sitting at the 29th percentile. These are nearly identical aggregate positions, which is remarkable given how different the two processors are in core count and power envelope. The i3-4170T achieves its position with a 35 watt TDP, while the FX-8320E requires 95 watts. The data indicates that the Intel part delivers comparable overall performance at less than half the thermal budget.

The nearest rivals for each chip further contextualize the head-to-head numbers. The i3-4170T sits alongside the Intel Core i5-5287U, which averages 1072, a 0% delta. It also trades blows with the AMD Athlon X4 880K (1071, 0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i5-2310 (1073, -0.1% delta). The FX-8320E, meanwhile, is bracketed by the Intel Core i3-4350 (1058, 0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 2500U (1058, 0.1% delta), and the Intel Core i7-2760QM (1057, 0.2% delta). The FX-8320E's rivals are a mix of older Intel parts and a Ryzen mobile chip, while the i3-4170T's rivals include a newer dual-core ultrabook processor and an older quad-core desktop chip. The comparison underscores that raw core count alone does not dictate standing in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-4170T wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, so the victory conditions are straightforward. It wins Geekbench multicore by 15.7% and Geekbench singlecore by 122.4%. The multicore win is the more interesting one because the FX-8320E has four times the physical cores. Yet the Intel part still pulls ahead, which points to superior per-core efficiency and likely better memory latency characteristics. The singlecore result is the more dramatic differentiator and will matter most for everyday desktop use, where most applications still scale poorly beyond a few threads.

The FX-8320E has no benchmark wins in this comparison. However, the data does not capture every possible workload. The FX-8320E's eight cores and 8 MB of L2 cache suggest it could be competitive in heavily threaded scenarios that are not represented in the two Geekbench tests. The database only records Geekbench results for the FX-8320E, while the i3-4170T also has Cinebench scores across R15, R20, and R23. Those Cinebench numbers are strong: 268 in R15 multicore, 1120 in R20 multicore, 157 in R20 singlecore, 2667 in R23 multicore, and 376 in R23 singlecore. But without comparable FX-8320E scores, a direct Cinebench comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

For a user deciding between these two, the i3-4170T is the clear winner in every measured category. The FX-8320E would only be preferable if a use case relies on its eight physical cores in a way that the Geekbench multicore test does not capture. The data cannot confirm such an advantage, so any recommendation for the AMD part would be speculative. The measured facts all favor Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4170T scores 972 in Geekbench singlecore, while the AMD FX-8320E scores 437. The Intel part leads by 122.4%.

Q: How do the two compare in multicore performance?

A: The i3-4170T scores 1945 in Geekbench multicore, and the FX-8320E scores 1681. The Intel processor leads by 15.7%.

Q: Do the two processors have the same base clock speed?

A: Yes, both have a base clock of 3.20 GHz. The FX-8320E also has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the i3-4170T has no boost clock listed.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-4170T has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The i3-4170T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the FX-8320E has a TDP of 95 watts.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD FX-8320E?

A: The launch MSRP for the FX-8320E is $147. The i3-4170T has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every major specification. The i3-4170T uses the Intel Socket 1150, while the FX-8320E uses AMD Socket AM3+. The Intel part is built on a 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD part uses a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 1,200 million transistors on a much larger 315 mm² die. The larger die with fewer transistors reflects the older, less dense manufacturing node.

Core and thread counts differ sharply: the i3-4170T has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the FX-8320E has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks match at 3.20 GHz, but the FX-8320E adds a 4.00 GHz boost clock, which the i3-4170T lacks. The Intel part is not multiplier-unlocked; the AMD part is.

Cache layouts are also very different. The i3-4170T has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The FX-8320E has 384 KB of L1 cache total, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip has substantially more total cache, especially at the L2 and L3 levels.

Memory support is DDR3 for both, and both use a dual-channel memory bus. The measured memory bandwidth differs: 25.6 GB/s for the i3-4170T versus 29.9 GB/s for the FX-8320E. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the i3-4170T has Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the FX-8320E has Gen 2.

Integrated graphics also separate the two. The i3-4170T includes Intel HD 4400 graphics. The FX-8320E has no integrated graphics of its own; the database notes that graphics are available "on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)." This means the AMD chip requires a discrete GPU or a motherboard with integrated graphics support, depending on the chipset. The Intel part can output display without a discrete card, which is a practical advantage for basic desktop use.

The release dates show the FX-8320E launched earlier in 2014-09-01, while the i3-4170T released in 2015-03-29. Both are marked as end-of-life. The FX-8320E has a recorded part number of FD832EWMW8KHKFD832EWMHKBOX, while the i3-4170T is listed as SR1TC.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational and philosophical. The i3-4170T uses Intel's Haswell architecture, a 22 nm design known for strong single-thread performance and power efficiency. The FX-8320E uses AMD's Piledriver architecture, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Piledriver is a modular design where pairs of cores share certain resources, which helps explain why the FX-8320E's eight cores do not translate into dominant multicore results against a modern dual-core with hyper-threading.

The i3-4170T's generation is listed as "Core i3 (Haswell)" and its codename is Haswell. The FX-8320E's generation is "FX (Vishera)" and its codename is Vishera. The transistor counts reflect the different design philosophies: Intel packs 1,400 million transistors into 177 mm², while AMD spreads 1,200 million transistors across 315 mm². The Intel chip achieves higher density and better efficiency per watt.

Cache architecture also reflects the design split. The i3-4170T uses per-core L1 and L2 caches, with a shared 3 MB L3 pool. The FX-8320E uses a larger shared L2 of 8 MB and a shared L3 of 8 MB. The AMD design tries to compensate for its older cores with more cache, but the Geekbench results show that cache size alone cannot overcome the per-core performance gap.

The FX-8320E's boost clock of 4.00 GHz gives it a frequency advantage over the i3-4170T's fixed 3.20 GHz, yet the Intel part still wins singlecore by more than double. This indicates that the Piledriver cores have significantly lower instructions-per-clock efficiency compared to Haswell cores. The FX-8320E's unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which could narrow the gap in some scenarios, but the recorded data does not include any overclocked results.

The i3-4170T's PCIe Gen 3 support is another architectural advantage over the FX-8320E's PCIe Gen 2. This affects bandwidth to discrete GPUs and NVMe storage, though the practical impact depends on the rest of the system. The Intel part also has an integrated GPU, which the AMD chip lacks entirely. For a small form factor or low-power desktop build, the i3-4170T offers a complete platform in a 35 watt package. The FX-8320E demands a separate graphics solution and a 95 watt power budget.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most users: the Intel Core i3-4170T. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, leads by 15.7% in multicore and 122.4% in singlecore, and does so at a 35 watt TDP compared to the FX-8320E's 95 watts. The i3-4170T also includes integrated graphics, which makes it a self-contained desktop solution. Its average benchmark score of 1072 edges out the FX-8320E's 1059, and its 30th percentile standing is one point higher than the AMD part's 29th percentile.

The FX-8320E's only theoretical advantages are its eight physical cores, larger cache pool, and unlocked multiplier. The recorded Geekbench multicore result shows that the i3-4170T still outpaces it, which suggests that the FX-8320E's core count does not translate into a practical win in that test. The FX-8320E also has a higher memory bandwidth figure of 29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s, but the singlecore deficit of 122.4% is too large to overcome for most workloads.

Users who already own an AM3+ platform and want to drop in an eight-core chip might consider the FX-8320E, especially given its unlocked multiplier and 4.00 GHz boost clock. But for a new build, the i3-4170T offers better measured performance, lower power consumption, integrated graphics, and a newer architecture. The database records no benchmark where the FX-8320E wins. Every measured metric favors the Intel part. The verdict is straightforward: choose the i3-4170T unless a specific workload demands the FX-8320E's eight threads and the data does not indicate that such a workload exists.