CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4360 and AMD FX-8320E are two desktop processors from 2014 that target very different design philosophies, yet their average benchmark scores land them within 0.2% of each other. The i3-4360 achieves an average benchmark score of 1061, while the FX-8320E scores 1059, a delta of just 0.2%. This places both at the 29th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are direct competitors in overall performance, despite their radically different core counts and architectures. The data shows a classic battle between a dual-core with hyper-threading and an eight-core monolithic design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a split personality in these two CPUs. The Intel Core i3-4360 dominates in single-threaded workloads, while the AMD FX-8320E shows its strength in multi-threaded scenarios. There is no single head-to-head benchmark table, but the individual test scores tell the story clearly.

In single-core performance, the i3-4360 is decisively ahead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel chip scores 182, which is a strong result for a dual-core part. The FX-8320E does not have a directly comparable Cinebench R20 single-core score in the data, but its Geekbench single-core score of 437 highlights its relative weakness in this area. The i3-4360’s high clock speed of 3.70 GHz, combined with the efficient Haswell architecture, gives it a significant edge in tasks that rely on a single thread. This advantage is also visible in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i3-4360 scores 435.

The multi-core results flip the script. The FX-8320E, with its 8 physical cores, is built for parallel workloads. While the i3-4360 manages a respectable Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 310 and a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 1294, the FX-8320E’s advantage comes from raw core count. The data shows the FX-8320E in a Geekbench multi-core result of 1681, which is a strong showing. However, the i3-4360’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 3082 suggests that in some modern, well-optimized multi-threaded tests, the Intel part can hold its own, though the FX-8320E’s 8 threads give it the theoretical edge in heavily parallel tasks.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the performance parity is confirmed. The i3-4360’s closest rival is the AMD Opteron 4376 HE with a 0% delta, and it is 0.2% ahead of the FX-8320E. Conversely, the FX-8320E is 0.1% behind the Intel Core i3-4350 and 0.2% behind the i3-4360. This means that in average performance across all benchmark suites, the two chips are effectively tied. The user’s choice comes down to workload-specific strengths, not overall superiority.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The Intel Core i3-4360 is built on the Haswell architecture using a 22 nm process node at Intel’s foundry. It is a dual-core processor with 4 threads, thanks to Hyper-Threading. Its transistor count is 1,400 million on a die size of 177 mm². The cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. It supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, uses PCIe Gen 3, and includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics. The processor is locked, meaning the multiplier is not unlocked for overclocking.

The AMD FX-8320E is a completely different beast. It uses the Piledriver architecture, manufactured on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is a true 8-core processor with 8 threads, with no hyper-threading equivalent. The transistor count is 1,200 million, but the die size is much larger at 315 mm², reflecting the older process node. Its cache is notably different: 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. It also supports DDR3 in dual-channel, but its PCIe implementation is Gen 2, which is a generation behind the Intel part. The FX-8320E has no integrated graphics; it relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards. Critically, the FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, making it a favorite for overclockers.

The memory bandwidth figures also differ, with the FX-8320E listing a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the i3-4360 does not have a listed figure. The process node difference is significant: 22 nm versus 32 nm. This gives Intel a power and efficiency advantage. The i3-4360 has a TDP of 54 watts, while the FX-8320E is rated at 95 watts. The FX-8320E also features a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the i3-4360 has a fixed base clock of 3.70 GHz with no boost capability.

The Verdict

The data suggests that the choice between these two CPUs depends entirely on the intended use case. For a user prioritizing single-threaded performance, lower power consumption, and a platform with integrated graphics, the Intel Core i3-4360 is the clear pick. Its 3.70 GHz base clock and Haswell architecture deliver superior responsiveness in everyday tasks and older or less parallelized games. The 54-watt TDP is also significantly easier on cooling and power bills.

For a user who runs multi-threaded applications, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific simulations, the AMD FX-8320E is the stronger option. Its 8 physical cores provide a raw parallel processing capability that the dual-core i3-4360 cannot match, despite the i3’s Hyper-Threading. The unlocked multiplier is also a major draw, as it permits overclocking to push performance further, a feature entirely absent on the i3-4360.

The benchmark averages are a wash, so the decision must be workload-driven. The i3-4360 wins on efficiency and single-core tasks; the FX-8320E wins on raw multi-core throughput and overclocking headroom.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: Intel Core i3-4360 has 2 cores; AMD FX-8320E has 8 cores.
• Threads: Intel Core i3-4360 has 4 threads; AMD FX-8320E has 8 threads.
• Base Clock: Intel Core i3-4360 runs at 3.70 GHz; AMD FX-8320E runs at 3.20 GHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel Core i3-4360 has no boost clock; AMD FX-8320E boosts to 4.00 GHz.
• TDP: Intel Core i3-4360 is rated at 54 watts; AMD FX-8320E is rated at 95 watts.
• Socket: Intel Core i3-4360 uses Intel Socket 1150; AMD FX-8320E uses AMD Socket AM3+.
• Architecture: Intel Core i3-4360 is Haswell; AMD FX-8320E is Piledriver.
• Process Node: Intel Core i3-4360 is 22 nm; AMD FX-8320E is 32 nm.
• Transistors: Intel Core i3-4360 has 1,400 million; AMD FX-8320E has 1,200 million.
• Die Size: Intel Core i3-4360 is 177 mm²; AMD FX-8320E is 315 mm².
• L1 Cache: Intel Core i3-4360 has 64 KB per core; AMD FX-8320E has 384 KB total.
• L2 Cache: Intel Core i3-4360 has 256 KB per core; AMD FX-8320E has 8 MB total.
• L3 Cache: Intel Core i3-4360 has 4 MB shared; AMD FX-8320E has 8 MB shared.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel Core i3-4360 is not listed; AMD FX-8320E is 29.9 GB/s.
• PCIe: Intel Core i3-4360 uses Gen 3; AMD FX-8320E uses Gen 2.
• Integrated Graphics: Intel Core i3-4360 has Intel HD 4600; AMD FX-8320E relies on chipset feature on certain motherboards.
• Multiplier Unlocked: Intel Core i3-4360 is locked; AMD FX-8320E is unlocked.
• Production Status: Intel Core i3-4360 is not specified; AMD FX-8320E is end-of-life.
• Launch MSRP: Intel Core i3-4360 has no listed launch MSRP; AMD FX-8320E had a launch MSRP of $147.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360 has an average benchmark score of 1061, while the AMD FX-8320E scores 1059. This makes the i3-4360 0.2% faster on average.

Q: Does the AMD FX-8320E support overclocking?

A: Yes, the AMD FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, which allows for overclocking. The Intel Core i3-4360 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The AMD FX-8320E does not have integrated graphics; it relies on a chipset feature found on certain motherboards.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360 has a TDP of 54 watts, while the AMD FX-8320E has a TDP of 95 watts. The Intel part consumes significantly less power.

Q: Which processor is better for single-threaded tasks?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360 is better for single-threaded tasks, as indicated by its Cinebench R20 single-core score of 182 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 435. The AMD FX-8320E has a lower Geekbench single-core score of 437, suggesting weaker single-core performance.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has 8 physical cores, while the Intel Core i3-4360 has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-4360 wins in scenarios that demand high single-core speed and low power draw. Its 3.70 GHz base clock and 54-watt TDP make it ideal for compact builds, basic office productivity, and older games that rely on one or two fast cores. The presence of integrated graphics is a decisive advantage for a simple system without a discrete GPU. The data shows its single-core scores are robust, and its 4 MB of L3 cache helps keep latency low.

The AMD FX-8320E wins in multi-threaded environments where core count is king. The 8-core, 8-thread design is well-suited for video rendering, compiling code, and streaming workloads. The unlocked multiplier provides a path to overclocking, which can further close the gap in single-threaded performance. The larger 8 MB L3 cache and higher 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth are assets in data-heavy parallel tasks. The 4.00 GHz boost clock helps when a few cores are active, but the overall architecture is designed for throughput over responsiveness.