AMD FX-8320E vs Intel Core i5-6350HQ Comparison

The recorded data places the AMD FX-8320E and the Intel Core i5-6350HQ in the same performance tier, with both processors registering an identical 29th percentile among all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are nearly inseparable, with the AMD part at 1059 and the Intel part at 1046, a gap of roughly 1.2 percent. The FX-8320E’s closest rival, the Intel Core i3-4350, scores 1058, a 0.1 percent delta, while the i5-6350HQ sits level with the AMD PRO A10-8770 at 1046. Despite comparable averages, the two chips achieve parity through entirely different means: the AMD processor leverages eight cores, while the Intel processor relies on a smaller number of faster, more efficient cores. The data indicates that the choice between them depends less on overall throughput and more on workload characteristics, platform constraints, and power envelopes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the FX-8320E and the i5-6350HQ, so the comparison must be constructed from their individual test results. The FX-8320E was measured in Geekbench tests, where it scored 1681 in multi-core and 437 in single-core. The i5-6350HQ was measured across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, producing a multi-core score of 364 in R15, 1518 in R20, and 3616 in R23, with single-core scores of 51, 214, and 510 respectively. These are different benchmark suites, so direct numeric comparison is impossible, but the relative positioning can be inferred from their average scores and percentiles.

The FX-8320E’s average score of 1059 places it 0.1 percent above the Intel Core i3-4350 (1058) and 0.2 percent above the Intel Core i7-2760QM (1057). It is also 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 2500U (1058), while trailing the Intel Core i3-4360 (1061) by 0.2 percent. This clustering around the 1050 to 1060 range indicates that the FX-8320E sits firmly in the mid-range of desktop processors, with its eight threads providing a modest edge over similarly priced quad-core parts in multi-threaded workloads.

The i5-6350HQ’s average score of 1046 puts it exactly level with the AMD PRO A10-8770 (1046), 0.1 percent behind the AMD Athlon X4 950 (1047), and 0.1 percent ahead of both the AMD PRO A10-9700 (1045) and the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 (1045). The i5-6350HQ’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 3616 is its strongest result, indicating that its four Skylake cores can sustain heavy multi-threaded loads, while its R23 single-core score of 510 shows strong per-thread performance. The FX-8320E’s Geekbench single-core score of 437 is notably lower relative to its multi-core score of 1681, suggesting that its Piledriver cores are less efficient per thread than the i5-6350HQ’s Skylake cores.

The biggest win for the FX-8320E is its multi-core Geekbench score of 1681, which is 60 percent higher than its own single-core score of 437, demonstrating scalability across eight cores. The i5-6350HQ’s largest advantage appears in Cinebench R23, where its single-core score of 510 is 42 percent of its multi-core score of 3616, indicating that each core contributes a larger share of total performance. The data suggests that the FX-8320E excels in heavily threaded applications, while the i5-6350HQ maintains a stronger per-core performance profile, making it more responsive in lightly threaded tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has an average benchmark score of 1059, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ has an average score of 1046. The FX-8320E leads by 13 points, which is approximately 1.2 percent, and both processors sit at the 29th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The AMD FX-8320E features 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ features 4 cores and 4 threads. This gives the AMD processor a 100 percent advantage in raw core count and thread count.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two chips?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Intel Core i5-6350HQ has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The AMD processor runs at higher clock speeds in both states.

Q: Which processor consumes more power according to the recorded specifications?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has a thermal design power (TDP) of 95 watts, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ has a TDP of 45 watts. The Intel processor is rated for less than half the power draw of the AMD part.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD FX-8320E supports DDR3 memory only, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory. The Intel processor also has a higher memory bandwidth rating of 34.1 GB/s compared to the AMD processor’s 29.9 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has integrated graphics available only on certain motherboards as a chipset feature. The Intel Core i5-6350HQ integrates Intel Iris Pro 580 graphics directly, making it a more complete package for systems without a discrete GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural lineages, reflected in their manufacturing processes, transistor counts, and design priorities. The AMD FX-8320E is built on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, using a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 1,200 million transistors on a die size of 315 mm². The Intel Core i5-6350HQ uses the Skylake architecture, codenamed Skylake-H, manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process. It packs 2,300 million transistors into a smaller 171 mm² die, demonstrating a significantly denser transistor layout.

The cache hierarchies also differ markedly. The FX-8320E has 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-6350HQ has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. While the AMD part has a larger total L3 cache, the Intel part’s per-core L2 allocation is more generous relative to its four-core design. The FX-8320E’s eight cores share a larger pool of L3, while the i5-6350HQ’s smaller core count allows for more dedicated cache per core.

The AMD processor uses a dual-channel memory bus with DDR3 support and a measured memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Intel processor also uses a dual-channel memory bus but supports both DDR3 and DDR4, achieving a higher memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The Intel part also features PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the CPU, while the AMD part is limited to PCIe Gen 2. The i5-6350HQ includes Intel Iris Pro 580 integrated graphics, whereas the FX-8320E relies on chipset-based graphics on select motherboards.

The FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the i5-6350HQ has a locked multiplier. The AMD processor is designed for desktop use with an AMD Socket AM3+, while the Intel processor is a mobile part using Intel BGA 1440. The FX-8320E was released in September 2014 with a launch MSRP of $147, while the i5-6350HQ was released in January 2016 with a launch MSRP of $306. Both are end-of-life products, and neither supports ECC memory.

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions the AMD FX-8320E and the Intel Core i5-6350HQ as statistically equivalent in overall performance, with the AMD part holding a 1.2 percent average score advantage. The FX-8320E is the better choice for workloads that scale across many threads, given its 8 cores and 8 threads, and its higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz provides a tangible advantage in multi-threaded throughput. Its unlockable multiplier also makes it appealing for users who intend to overclock, and its lower launch MSRP of $147 reflects a more accessible entry point.

The i5-6350HQ is the better choice for mobile or power-constrained environments, as its 45 watt TDP is less than half of the FX-8320E’s 95 watts. Its Skylake architecture delivers stronger per-core performance, evidenced by its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 510, and its integrated Iris Pro 580 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic systems. The i5-6350HQ also supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, offering more flexibility in system configuration, and its PCIe Gen 3 support provides faster expansion bandwidth.

For a desktop user building a heavily threaded workstation without concern for power consumption, the FX-8320E’s eight cores make it the logical pick. For a laptop or compact system where efficiency and integrated graphics matter, the i5-6350HQ is clearly superior. The recorded data shows that neither processor dominates the other across all metrics; the decision hinges on the platform and the workload.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD FX-8320E has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-6350HQ has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz for the AMD part and 2.30 GHz for the Intel part, with boost clocks of 4.00 GHz and 3.20 GHz respectively. The TDP rating is 95 watts for the AMD processor and 45 watts for the Intel processor.

The AMD processor uses an AMD Socket AM3+, while the Intel processor uses Intel BGA 1440. The FX-8320E is based on Piledriver architecture with the Vishera codename, while the i5-6350HQ is based on Skylake architecture with the Skylake-H codename. The manufacturing process is 32 nm for AMD and 14 nm for Intel. Transistor counts are 1,200 million for the AMD part and 2,300 million for the Intel part, with die sizes of 315 mm² and 171 mm² respectively.

Cache configurations differ, with the FX-8320E featuring 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3, while the i5-6350HQ features 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR3 for the AMD part and DDR3 plus DDR4 for the Intel part. Memory bandwidth is 29.9 GB/s for AMD and 34.1 GB/s for Intel. The AMD processor uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Intel processor uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the CPU.

The FX-8320E has integrated graphics only as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, while the i5-6350HQ has Intel Iris Pro 580 integrated graphics. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, the Intel part does not. The market segments are Desktop for AMD and Mobile for Intel. The release dates are September 2014 for AMD and January 2016 for Intel, with launch MSRP values of $147 and $306 respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-8320E wins in multi-threaded desktop workloads, as its 8-core design and 4.00 GHz boost clock allow it to process parallel tasks efficiently. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 1681, which is nearly four times its single-core score, confirms that applications capable of using many threads will see strong scaling. The unlocked multiplier also gives overclocking enthusiasts the ability to push performance further, and the lower launch MSRP makes it a cost-effective option for building a high-core-count system.

The Intel Core i5-6350HQ wins in single-threaded performance and power efficiency. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 510, paired with a 45 watt TDP, shows that it delivers competitive per-core performance while drawing less than half the power of the FX-8320E. The integrated Iris Pro 580 graphics make it a self-contained solution for laptops or small-form-factor systems, and its support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory provides broader compatibility. The PCIe Gen 3 interface also offers faster data transfer for compatible peripherals.

In terms of platform flexibility, the i5-6350HQ’s mobile BGA 1440 socket suits integrated designs, while the FX-8320E’s AM3+ socket supports traditional desktop motherboards. The Intel part’s newer 14 nm process and higher transistor count suggest a more modern design, while the AMD part’s larger die and older 32 nm process reflect a legacy architecture. The data ultimately shows that the FX-8320E is the multi-core champion, while the i5-6350HQ is the efficiency and integrated-graphics leader.