CPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a close overall contest between the Intel Core i3-9100HL and the AMD FX-8320E, with the average benchmark scores landing within 0.6% of each other. The Intel part averages 1065 points, while the AMD FX-8320E averages 1059 points, a difference of just 6 points. However, this near-identical average masks significant differences in how each processor performs across different workloads.

The Intel Core i3-9100HL's strongest results come from Cinebench multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 3094 points, while in Cinebench R20 multi-core it hits 1299 points, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core it manages 311 points. These are respectable figures for a 4-core, 4-thread part, but they cannot be directly compared to the AMD FX-8320E because the two processors share no common benchmark tests in the data pack.

The AMD FX-8320E, with its 8 cores and 8 threads, shows its capabilities through Geekbench results. It scores 1681 in Geekbench multi-core and 437 in Geekbench single-core. These numbers place the FX-8320E in the 29th percentile of all CPUs, exactly matching the Intel i3-9100HL's percentile ranking. This parity in percentile is telling, despite having twice the core count, the older AMD architecture does not achieve a higher overall standing.

When examining the nearest rivals for each processor, the data shows how tightly clustered these mid-range parts are. The Intel i3-9100HL sits just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon W3580 (1064 points) and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-2380P (1063 points). The AMD FX-8320E similarly sits 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i3-4350 (1058 points) and matches the AMD Ryzen 5 2500U at 1058 points with a 0.1% delta. This clustering suggests both processors occupy a similar performance tier, regardless of their architectural differences.

The absence of head-to-head benchmark data means no single test pits these two directly against each other. Instead, the average benchmark scores serve as the primary comparison point. With the Intel part holding a 6-point advantage out of roughly 1060 points, the performance difference is negligible in aggregate terms. Yet the underlying architecture tells a more nuanced story about how each achieves its results.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial and explains much of their behavioral differences. The Intel Core i3-9100HL is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the AMD FX-8320E uses a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process gap alone accounts for significant differences in power efficiency and thermal characteristics.

The Intel part features a Coffee Lake architecture with a die size of 126 mm², whereas the AMD FX-8320E employs the Piledriver architecture (codename Vishera) with a much larger die at 315 mm². The AMD chip contains 1,200 million transistors, while the Intel chip's transistor count is not listed in the data. The larger die and older process node explain why the FX-8320E carries a 95W TDP compared to the i3-9100HL's 25W TDP, a 70W difference that has major implications for cooling requirements and system design.

Core configurations differ fundamentally. The i3-9100HL offers 4 cores and 4 threads, relying on higher instructions per clock from its newer architecture. The FX-8320E provides 8 cores and 8 threads, leveraging raw multi-threading capability. Clock speeds favor the AMD part significantly, the FX-8320E runs at a 3.20 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.00 GHz, while the i3-9100HL operates at just 1.60 GHz base with a 2.90 GHz boost. This clock speed advantage helps the older AMD architecture remain competitive despite its efficiency disadvantages.

Cache hierarchies reveal different design philosophies. The Intel chip provides 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. The AMD chip offers 384 KB total L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. The AMD part's larger total cache could help compensate for its slower memory subsystem.

Memory support diverges completely. The i3-9100HL supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, plus ECC memory support. The FX-8320E uses DDR3 with dual-channel configuration and a lower memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, without ECC support. This 12.8 GB/s bandwidth advantage for Intel could meaningfully impact memory-intensive workloads.

PCIe capabilities also differ, with the Intel part offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) versus the AMD part's Gen 2. Integrated graphics present another distinction, the i3-9100HL includes UHD Graphics 630, while the FX-8320E relies on chipset-based graphics on certain motherboards, which is not a true integrated GPU.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-9100HL wins in scenarios that benefit from modern architecture, power efficiency, and memory bandwidth. Its 25W TDP makes it suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems where the AMD part's 95W TDP would be impractical. The DDR4 memory support with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth provides a substantial data throughput advantage over the FX-8320E's DDR3 at 29.9 GB/s. For single-threaded workloads, the i3-9100HL's newer architecture likely delivers better instructions per clock, even at lower clock speeds.

The AMD FX-8320E wins in scenarios that scale with core count. Its 8 cores and 8 threads provide double the parallel execution capacity of the i3-9100HL's 4 cores and 4 threads. For heavily multi-threaded applications that can utilize all available cores, the FX-8320E's higher base and boost clocks (3.20 GHz and 4.00 GHz versus 1.60 GHz and 2.90 GHz) combined with more cores could deliver superior throughput. The unlocked multiplier on the FX-8320E also allows overclocking, potentially extending its performance envelope further.

The benchmark averages suggest neither processor dominates the other. Both sit at the 29th percentile of all CPUs, and their average scores differ by only 0.6%. This indicates that for general-purpose computing, the two are roughly equivalent, with architecture-specific workloads determining which one pulls ahead.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100HL has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 1065 points, compared to the AMD FX-8320E's 1059 points, a difference of 6 points or approximately 0.6%.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two processors?

A: The AMD FX-8320E offers 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-9100HL provides 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part has twice the core and thread count of the Intel processor.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100HL supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s and includes ECC memory support. The AMD FX-8320E supports DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s and does not support ECC memory.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No, both processors are marked as end-of-life in their production status. The Intel Core i3-9100HL was released on 2019-03-31, while the AMD FX-8320E was released on 2014-09-01.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100HL has a TDP of 25W, which is significantly lower than the AMD FX-8320E's 95W TDP. This represents a 70W difference in thermal design power.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100HL uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, while the AMD FX-8320E uses the AMD Socket AM3+. These sockets are not interchangeable.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-9100HL | AMD FX-8320E |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.60 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.90 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 25W | 95W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | AMD Socket AM3+ |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Piledriver |

| Codename | Coffee Lake | Vishera |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 32 nm |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 315 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,200 million |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 384 KB total |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB per core | 8 MB |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB shared | 8 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 29.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | Chipset feature |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $225 | $147 |

# The Verdict

The data presents a fascinating case of architectural philosophy versus raw specifications. The Intel Core i3-9100HL achieves near-identical average benchmark scores to the AMD FX-8320E while using drastically less power, 25W versus 95W, and operating at much lower clock speeds. This suggests the Coffee Lake architecture delivers significantly better instructions per clock than the aging Piledriver design.

For users building compact or power-sensitive systems, the Intel Core i3-9100HL is the clear choice based on its 25W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 630, which eliminates the need for a discrete graphics card. The DDR4 memory support with higher bandwidth and ECC capability also makes it suitable for workstation-adjacent tasks where data integrity matters.

The AMD FX-8320E appeals to users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput and have the thermal headroom to accommodate a 95W processor. Its 8 cores and 8 threads, combined with higher clock speeds, could deliver better performance in heavily parallel workloads. The unlocked multiplier enables overclocking, and the lower launch MSRP of $147 (versus $225) reflects its position as a budget-oriented part, though pricing considerations are secondary to performance data here.

Given the 0.6% average score difference and identical 29th percentile ranking, neither processor offers a decisive performance advantage in general workloads. The choice ultimately depends on platform requirements: the i3-9100HL's modern features and efficiency versus the FX-8320E's core count and overclocking headroom. For most modern use cases, the Intel part's architectural advantages in memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 3, and power efficiency make it the more forward-looking option, while the AMD part remains relevant for legacy AM3+ platforms and multi-threaded tasks that can exploit its 8 cores.