CPU Comparison

The AMD FX-8320E and Intel Core i7-2820QM occupy the same 29th percentile among all CPUs, yet they achieve that status through entirely different design philosophies. One is an eight-core desktop part built for multi-threaded throughput at a high power envelope, while the other is a four-core mobile chip relying on higher per-core efficiency and lower power draw. The benchmark data reveals a near-perfect split: each processor wins exactly one of the two head-to-head tests, with the AMD taking multi-core by 3.6% and the Intel taking single-core by 15.5%. This is a tale of two very different architectures converging on similar average scores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-8320E claims victory in the Geekbench multi-core test, scoring 1681 against the Intel’s 1623, a 3.6% advantage. This win is directly attributable to its physical core count: eight Piledriver cores versus four Sandy Bridge cores, both capable of handling eight threads. In workloads that scale across cores, rendering, video encoding, scientific simulations, the AMD’s raw thread count gives it the edge, even if that edge is modest. The data suggests that the FX-8320E can extract slightly more parallelism from heavily threaded applications, making it the more capable choice for multi-threaded desktop tasks.

The Intel Core i7-2820QM decisively wins the Geekbench single-core test, scoring 517 versus the AMD’s 437, a 15.5% margin. This is a substantial gap that reflects the architectural superiority of Sandy Bridge’s execution engine. In lightly threaded workloads, legacy games, office productivity, web browsing, and most everyday applications, the Intel part delivers noticeably snappier performance. The 15.5% delta means that for single-threaded tasks, the i7-2820QM is not merely slightly better; it is categorically faster. Users whose software relies on one or two strong cores will find the Intel chip far more responsive.

The split is clean: the FX-8320E wins where thread counts matter, and the i7-2820QM wins where per-core strength matters. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story, with the Intel at 1069 and the AMD at 1059, a difference of less than 1%. Both CPUs sit within 0.2% of their nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i3-4350, AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, and Intel Core i7-2760QM, indicating that neither chip has a meaningful overall performance advantage. The choice between them hinges entirely on workload profile, not on aggregate capability.

Architecture Differences

The FX-8320E uses AMD’s Piledriver architecture on the Vishera codename, fabricated on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors into a 315 mm² die. The i7-2820QM uses Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture, also on a 32 nm process but fabricated by Intel, with 1,160 million transistors on a much smaller 216 mm² die. The transistor counts are similar, but the AMD die is nearly 46% larger, reflecting the overhead of eight cores and AMD’s less dense design.

The cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The AMD has 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel has 64 KB of L1 per core (256 KB total for four cores), 256 KB of L2 per core (1 MB total), and 8 MB of shared L3. The AMD’s L2 cache is eight times larger in aggregate, which can help feed its eight cores, while the Intel’s smaller per-core caches rely on faster access times and better prefetching.

Clock speeds tell a contrasting story. The AMD runs at a 3.20 GHz base clock with a 4.00 GHz boost, while the Intel runs at a 2.30 GHz base with a 3.40 GHz boost. Despite the Intel’s lower clocks, it wins single-core performance by 15.5%, demonstrating that Sandy Bridge’s instructions-per-clock (IPC) is far superior to Piledriver’s. The Intel compensates for its 0.9 GHz base clock deficit and 0.6 GHz boost deficit through architectural efficiency.

The power envelopes are dramatically different. The AMD has a 95 W TDP, while the Intel is rated at just 45 W. This makes the Intel part suitable for mobile platforms, as it is a Socket G2 (988B) mobile processor, whereas the AMD is a desktop part on Socket AM3+. The Intel also includes integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics, while the AMD relies on chipset-based graphics on certain motherboards. Memory support is DDR3 dual-channel for both, but the AMD lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s while the Intel does not specify one. The AMD has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel is locked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has 8 physical cores, while the Intel Core i7-2820QM has 4 physical cores. Both support 8 threads, as the Intel uses Hyper-Threading.

Q: Why does the Intel chip win single-core despite lower clock speeds?

A: The Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture delivers significantly higher instructions-per-clock than AMD’s Piledriver. Despite running at a 2.30 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost, versus the AMD’s 3.20 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost, the Intel scores 517 in Geekbench single-core against the AMD’s 437, a 15.5% advantage.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has a 95 W TDP, while the Intel Core i7-2820QM has a 45 W TDP. The Intel part draws less than half the power, making it far more suitable for laptops and compact systems.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The AMD was released in September 2014 with a launch MSRP of $147, while the Intel was released in January 2011 without a listed launch MSRP.

Q: Which CPU is better for multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD FX-8320E, based on the Geekbench multi-core test where it scores 1681 versus the Intel’s 1623, a 3.6% advantage. The AMD’s eight physical cores give it a slight edge in heavily threaded applications.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory?

A: Both support DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration. The AMD lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Intel does not specify a bandwidth figure. Neither supports ECC memory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FX-8320E | Intel Core i7-2820QM |

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

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ | Intel Socket G2 (988B) |

| Architecture | Piledriver | Sandy Bridge |

| Codename | Vishera | Sandy Bridge |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,200 million | 1,160 million |

| Die Size | 315 mm² | 216 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 29.9 GB/s | Not specified |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Not specified |

| Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Intel HD 3000 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $147 | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench multi-core test is the AMD’s strongest showing. The FX-8320E scores 1681 against the i7-2820QM’s 1623, a 3.6% delta in favor of the AMD. While the percentage is modest, it is consistent across the eight-thread workload. The AMD’s eight physical cores provide a slight throughput advantage over the Intel’s four cores with Hyper-Threading. This result places the FX-8320E in a narrow band of CPUs performing at this level, with its nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-2760QM, scoring 1057 on average, just 0.2% below the AMD’s 1059 average.

The Geekbench single-core test flips the script dramatically. The i7-2820QM scores 517, while the FX-8320E manages only 437, a 15.5% delta in favor of Intel. This is the largest performance gap between the two chips in any metric. The Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture executes instructions far more efficiently per clock, overcoming its 1.7 GHz boost clock deficit. The 15.5% margin is substantial enough that users will perceive the difference in daily tasks, from application launches to spreadsheet recalculation. Notably, the Intel’s single-core score of 517 is higher than its multi-core score of 1623 when normalized per core, indicating strong scaling.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Intel has more data points: Cinebench R15 multi-core at 372 and single-core at 52, Cinebench R20 multi-core at 1552 and single-core at 219, and Cinebench R23 multi-core at 3697 and single-core at 522. The AMD has no Cinebench results in the data. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 1059 for AMD and 1069 for Intel, a 0.9% difference that falls within noise. Both processors are surrounded by rivals within 0.3% of their scores, including the Intel Core i3-4350, AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, Intel Processor N95, and AMD Opteron 3380. This indicates that neither chip offers a meaningful overall performance advantage in aggregate metrics.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for workload-specific selection. Choose the AMD FX-8320E if your primary applications are multi-threaded and you can tolerate a 95 W TDP in a desktop system. Its 3.6% multi-core win over the Intel, combined with eight physical cores, makes it the better choice for rendering, encoding, and other parallel tasks. The unlocked multiplier also allows for overclocking headroom, a feature the Intel lacks entirely.

Choose the Intel Core i7-2820QM if single-threaded performance or power efficiency is your priority. Its 15.5% single-core advantage is decisive, and its 45 W TDP makes it viable for mobile platforms where the AMD cannot operate. The integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics provide a built-in display output, whereas the AMD requires a separate GPU or a motherboard with chipset graphics. For users running legacy software, office applications, or games that favor strong single-core performance, the Intel chip is the superior choice.

For users who need a balance of both, the data shows that the average benchmark scores are nearly tied, with the Intel leading by just 0.9%. Neither chip will disappoint in general-purpose use, but each has a clear domain where it excels. The FX-8320E is the multi-threaded workhorse; the i7-2820QM is the efficient single-core specialist. The 29th percentile ranking for both confirms that they are mid-range performers by modern standards, but within that tier, the choice is unambiguous based on workload.