CPU Comparison

# AMD FX-8320E vs Intel Core i3-4350

The AMD FX-8320E and Intel Core i3-4350 occupy nearly identical positions in the overall benchmark landscape, with average scores of 1059 and 1058 respectively. The delta between them is a mere 0.1% in favor of the AMD part, placing both CPUs at the 29th percentile among all processors tested. This near-parity in aggregate performance masks substantial differences in how each chip achieves its results, differences that become apparent only when examining workload-specific behavior.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data available for these two processors is asymmetrical, with the AMD FX-8320E providing Geekbench results while the Intel Core i3-4350 offers Cinebench scores. This makes direct score-to-score comparison impossible, but the aggregate average benchmark scores and the rival deltas provide the necessary context.

The AMD FX-8320E posts a Geekbench multi-core score of 1681 and a single-core score of 437. The multi-core figure is nearly four times the single-core result, reflecting the processor's eight-core design. The single-core score of 437 is modest by modern standards, and the fact that the FX-8320E's average benchmark score of 1059 sits so close to its nearest rivals suggests that its multi-core advantage is partially offset by weaker single-threaded performance.

The Intel Core i3-4350, by contrast, delivers Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 309, Cinebench R20 multi-core of 1291, and Cinebench R20 single-core of 182. Its Cinebench R23 results show a multi-core score of 3076 and a single-core score of 434. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 434 is remarkably close to the FX-8320E's Geekbench single-core score of 437, though these are different benchmarks and not directly comparable.

When examining the nearest rival data, the FX-8320E's closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-4350 itself, with a delta of 0.1%. The Intel Core i3-4360 sits 0.2% above the AMD part, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2500U and Intel Core i7-2760QM each sit 0.1% below. For the Core i3-4350, its nearest rival list includes the AMD FX-8320E at -0.1%, meaning the Intel part trails the AMD chip by that margin in average score. The Ryzen 5 2500U matches the Core i3-4350 exactly, while the Core i7-2760QM is 0.1% ahead and the Pentium G4600 is 0.2% behind.

The key insight from the head-to-head data is that these processors are statistical equals in aggregate performance. The average benchmark scores differ by only one point out of approximately 1058, a margin that falls well within typical run-to-run variance. Neither processor can claim a meaningful overall victory based on the available aggregate data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is substantial. The AMD FX-8320E uses the Piledriver architecture, built on the Vishera codename, while the Intel Core i3-4350 employs the Haswell architecture. These represent fundamentally different design philosophies from two competing manufacturers.

The FX-8320E is fabricated on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries, containing 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Core i3-4350 uses Intel's 22 nm process, packing 1,400 million transistors into a much smaller 177 mm² die. This means Intel fits more transistors into roughly half the silicon area, an advantage in manufacturing density that translates to lower power consumption.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The FX-8320E offers eight cores and eight threads, while the Core i3-4350 provides two cores and four threads thanks to Hyper-Threading. The AMD part's base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, whereas the Intel chip runs at a fixed 3.60 GHz with no boost capability. The FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Core i3-4350's multiplier is locked.

Cache hierarchies reveal further divergence. The FX-8320E has 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i3-4350 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. While the AMD part offers more total cache, the Intel design's per-core allocation is more generous relative to its core count.

The power envelopes differ substantially, with the FX-8320E rated at 95 W TDP compared to the Core i3-4350's 54 W TDP. This nearly 2x difference in thermal design power reflects the efficiency advantage of Intel's smaller process node and more modern architecture. The platforms also diverge: the AMD chip uses Socket AM3+ with PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel chip uses Socket 1150 with PCIe Gen 3.

Integrated graphics present another distinction. The FX-8320E relies on chipset-based graphics available on certain motherboards, whereas the Core i3-4350 includes Intel HD 4600 graphics directly on the processor. Memory support is DDR3 dual-channel for both, though the FX-8320E lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s while the Intel part does not specify this figure. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has eight cores and eight threads, while the Intel Core i3-4350 has two cores and four threads. The AMD part offers four times the physical core count of the Intel chip.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between these two CPUs?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has an average benchmark score of 1059, while the Intel Core i3-4350 scores 1058. The difference is 0.1% in favor of the AMD processor.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-4350 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i3-4350 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The AMD FX-8320E does not have integrated graphics on the processor itself, instead relying on chipset features available on certain motherboards.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. The Intel Core i3-4350 has a locked multiplier, preventing multiplier-based overclocking.

Q: What process nodes are used for these processors?

A: The AMD FX-8320E is built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the Intel Core i3-4350 uses a 22 nm process at Intel. The Intel chip also contains more transistors (1,400 million) despite its smaller die size of 177 mm², compared to the AMD's 1,200 million transistors on 315 mm².

Q: How do these processors compare in power consumption?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has a TDP of 95 W, while the Intel Core i3-4350 has a TDP of 54 W. The Intel processor consumes significantly less power under load.

Specification Differences

The specifications where these two processors differ are extensive. Core count differs at 8 for the AMD versus 2 for the Intel. Thread count differs at 8 versus 4. Base clock speeds are 3.20 GHz for the AMD and 3.60 GHz for the Intel, with the AMD offering a 4.00 GHz boost clock while the Intel has no boost capability.

The TDP ratings diverge sharply: 95 W for the AMD, 54 W for the Intel. Sockets differ between AMD Socket AM3+ and Intel Socket 1150. Architectures are Piledriver versus Haswell, with codenames Vishera and Haswell respectively. Process nodes are 32 nm versus 22 nm, with different foundries: GlobalFoundries for AMD and Intel for the Intel part.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ: 1,200 million transistors on 315 mm² for AMD, versus 1,400 million on 177 mm² for Intel. Cache configurations are not directly comparable, with AMD offering 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3, while Intel provides 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3.

PCIe generation differs at Gen 2 for AMD and Gen 3 for Intel. The integrated graphics situation differs, with AMD relying on chipset features and Intel including HD 4600. The multiplier unlock status differs, with AMD unlocked and Intel locked. The AMD processor carries a launch MSRP of $147, while no launch MSRP is listed for the Intel part. The AMD processor's release date is September 2014, while the Intel part arrived in April 2014.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-8320E wins in scenarios that leverage its eight physical cores. Multi-threaded workloads that can utilize all eight threads will benefit from the AMD's parallel processing capability. The processor's unlocked multiplier also makes it the choice for users who want to overclock, provided they have adequate cooling and a compatible AM3+ motherboard. The AMD part's larger L3 cache of 8 MB shared could also provide advantages in workloads that repeatedly access a sizable working set.

The Intel Core i3-4350 wins in efficiency and single-threaded performance scenarios. Its 54 W TDP makes it suitable for compact or low-power builds where thermal output matters. The higher base clock of 3.60 GHz, combined with the Haswell architecture's superior instructions per clock, gives it an edge in lightly-threaded applications. The integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics provide a complete solution without requiring a discrete graphics card, making it viable for basic desktop use or office productivity systems. The PCIe Gen 3 support offers greater bandwidth for modern expansion cards.

The benchmark data shows the AMD part's Geekbench single-core score of 437 is its weak point, while the multi-core score of 1681 demonstrates its strength. The Intel part's Cinebench results show a balanced profile, with the R23 multi-core score of 3076 being roughly seven times the R20 single-core score of 182, though these use different benchmarks and scaling is not linear.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture of two processors that achieve similar aggregate performance through entirely different means. The AMD FX-8320E and Intel Core i3-4350 sit at the same 29th percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores separated by only one point. The 0.1% delta in favor of the AMD part is statistically insignificant.

For users whose workloads scale with core count, the FX-8320E's eight cores make it the appropriate choice. The ability to overclock via the unlocked multiplier adds flexibility, and the larger total cache capacity may benefit certain applications. However, this comes at the cost of 95 W TDP and reliance on the older AM3+ platform with PCIe Gen 2.

For users prioritizing power efficiency, integrated graphics, or per-core performance, the Core i3-4350 is the data-supported selection. Its 54 W TDP is nearly half that of the AMD part, the integrated HD 4600 eliminates the need for a separate GPU in basic systems, and the higher base clock on a newer architecture supports single-threaded responsiveness. The PCIe Gen 3 support and smaller 177 mm² die size reflect a more modern design.

The choice between these processors ultimately depends on workload characteristics. The AMD FX-8320E serves multi-threaded, overclockable builds where raw core count matters. The Intel Core i3-4350 serves efficiency-focused, integrated-graphics systems where lower power consumption and platform modernity are priorities. Neither processor offers a decisive aggregate performance advantage, making the decision contingent on specific use cases rather than overall benchmark superiority.