AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i3-9100E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows a direct comparison between the Intel Core i3-9100E and the AMD FX-8350, two desktop processors from different eras with very different design philosophies. The recorded average benchmark scores place them close together overall, but the way they achieve those scores could not be more different.

The Intel Core i3-9100E has an average benchmark score of 1605 across the recorded tests, while the AMD FX-8350 sits at 1557. That is a difference of roughly 3% in favor of the Intel part. The percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database is identical for both processors at 39, meaning they occupy the same tier of overall performance in the grand scheme of desktop computing.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the Core i3-9100E, it sits within a very tight cluster. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 scores 1609, which is only 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i7-10610U scores 1611, 0.3% higher. The Intel Core i7-970 scores 1613, 0.5% higher. On the other side, the Intel Core i7-1060G7 scores 1591, which is 0.9% lower. This places the i3-9100E in a remarkably dense field of competing processors, where the difference between first and last in its immediate neighborhood is barely two percent.

The FX-8350's nearest rivals tell a similar story of density. The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 matches it exactly at 1557 with a delta of 0. The Intel Core i3-1115G4E scores 1559, just 0.1% higher. The AMD Opteron 6276 scores 1560, 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i3-9300 scores 1554, which is 0.2% lower. The FX-8350 is therefore right in the middle of an equally tight cluster of CPUs that all land within a fraction of a percent of each other.

The head-to-head benchmark data in the database shows no shared tests between these two processors, so the comparison must be read through their respective average scores and nearest rival positioning. That said, the individual benchmark results for each chip reveal why their averages land where they do.

The Intel Core i3-9100E shows its strength in Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 559, and in single-core it reaches 78. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score jumps to 2330, with a single-core score of 328. In Cinebench R23, the multicore result climbs further to 5549, while single-core hits 783. These numbers demonstrate a processor that scales consistently across generations of the Cinebench workload, with single-core performance that allows it to stay competitive despite having only four cores and four threads.

The AMD FX-8350's recorded benchmarks come from Geekbench tests. It scores 2551 in multicore and 563 in single-core. These are the only benchmark entries in the database for this processor, and they show a chip that relies on its eight physical cores to push multicore workloads, while its single-core showing is far more modest.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-9100E wins in scenarios where per-core performance and modern instruction efficiency matter. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 783, compared to its own multicore result of 5549, shows a ratio that indicates strong single-thread behavior. The chip's 14 nm Coffee Lake architecture, with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, delivers the kind of responsiveness that older software and lightly threaded applications still depend on. The database shows the i3-9100E also supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, which gives it a clear advantage in memory-sensitive workloads compared to the older DDR3 platform of the FX-8350.

The AMD FX-8350 wins in raw multi-threaded throughput when the workload can use all eight of its threads. Its base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz are higher than the i3-9100E's clocks, and the eight-core, eight-thread configuration gives it a physical core advantage. For workloads that scale linearly with core count, the FX-8350 can brute-force its way through tasks that would leave a four-core processor struggling. Its Geekbench multicore score of 2551 reflects that strength, even if the single-core result of 563 is far behind the i3-9100E's single-thread capabilities.

The memory bus difference matters here. The FX-8350 runs DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The i3-9100E runs DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s. That 8.5 GB/s difference in theoretical bandwidth can show up in workloads that stream large amounts of data, such as video encoding or database operations. The i3-9100E also supports ECC memory, while the FX-8350 does not, which makes the Intel part relevant for error-tolerant computing environments. The FX-8350's PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU side, whereas the FX-8350 uses PCIe Gen 2, a significant gap for anyone thinking about modern storage devices or expansion cards.

For content creation workloads, the FX-8350's eight cores allow it to render scenes in parallel, and the database shows it is competitive enough to land at the 39th percentile, identical to the i3-9100E. But the i3-9100E's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 5549 suggests it can hold its own even in multi-threaded rendering, thanks to the efficiency of the Coffee Lake architecture.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core i3-9100E is the safer pick for most builders today. It delivers a higher average benchmark score of 1605 against the FX-8350's 1557, and it does so with dramatically lower power consumption. The i3-9100E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the FX-8350 draws 125 watts. That is a 60 watt difference in favor of Intel, which means less heat to manage, smaller cooling requirements, and potentially lower operating costs over the life of the system.

The FX-8350's launch MSRP was $199, while the i3-9100E had a launch MSRP of $122. The FX-8350 also has an unlocked multiplier, which is true, and the i3-9100E is locked, which is false. For overclocking enthusiasts who want to push clocks beyond the stock 4.20 GHz boost of the FX-8350, the AMD part offers that flexibility. The i3-8350E, with a boost clock of 3.70 GHz and a base clock of 3.70 GHz, does not offer the same headroom for manual tuning.

The FX-8350's production status is end-of-life, and the i3-9100E is also end-of-life, so neither chip is a current-generation product. The FX-8350 was released in 2012, while the i3-9100E arrived in 2018. The i3-9100E is the more modern design, built on a 14 nm process, and it shows in the efficiency and per-core performance.

For anyone building a new system from scratch, the i3-9100E is the clear recommendation. It has ECC support, DDR4 memory support, a better memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, and a much lower TDP. For anyone who already owns an AM3+ motherboard and has DDR3 memory on hand, the FX-8350 can still be a viable upgrade path if they need eight threads of processing power and do not care about per-core performance.

The FX-8350's average score of 1557 is only 48 points behind the i3-9100E's 1605, which is a gap of approximately 3%, well within the range where the two chips trade blows in the nearest rival clusters around them. The FX-8350 matches the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 exactly at 1557, and the i3-9100E is 0.2% behind the Xeon E3-1240L v5 at 1609. Both chips sit in dense performance neighborhoods, but the i3-9100E's neighborhood is slightly higher.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100E has an average benchmark score of 1605, while the AMD FX-8350 has an average score of 1557, giving the Intel part a lead of roughly 3%.

Q: How do the Cinebench scores of the i3-9100E compare to the FX-8350's Geekbench scores?

A: The i3-9100E was tested in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, with its best multicore result being 5549 in R23 and best single-core result being 783 in R23. The FX-8350 was tested in Geekbench, scoring 2551 in multicore and 563 in single-core. The database does not include shared tests between the two, so direct cross-benchmark comparisons are not available.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100E supports ECC memory, while the AMD FX-8350 does not.

Q: What are the memory types and bandwidth differences between the two chips?

A: The i3-9100E supports DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus and has a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The FX-8350 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and has a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-9100E has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the AMD FX-8350 has a TDP of 125 watts, a difference of 60 watts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Intel Core i3-9100E uses the Coffee Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry. The AMD FX-8350 uses the Piledriver architecture on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 32 nm explains much of the efficiency gap between the two, and the i3-9100E's die size of 126 mm² is far smaller than the FX-8350's 315 mm². The FX-8350 has 1,200 million transistors, while the i3-9100E's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

The cache layouts differ substantially. The i3-9100E has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The FX-8350 has 384 KB total L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The FX-8350's larger L2 and L3 pools give it more total cache, but the i3-9100E's per-core L1 and L2 design gives each of its four cores faster access to its own cache.

The integrated graphics situation also differs. The i3-9100E includes UHD Graphics 630, while the FX-8350 relies on chipset-based graphics on certain motherboards. The i3-9100E's memory bus is dual-channel DDR4, the FX-8350's is dual-channel DDR3. The PCIe generations differ as well: the i3-9100E supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU, while the FX-8350 uses PCIe Gen 2.

The FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier, making it an overclocking-friendly part, while the i3-9100E has a locked multiplier. The FX-8350's socket is AMD Socket AM3+, while the i3-9100E uses Intel Socket 1151, meaning neither chip is compatible with the other's motherboard.

Specification Differences

The most visible difference is core count: the FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-9100E has 4 cores and 4 threads. Clocks differ as well, with the FX-8350 running at a base of 4.00 GHz and a boost of 4.20 GHz, while the i3-9100E runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost.

TDP is a major separator: 65 watts for the i3-9100E versus 125 watts for the FX-8350. Memory support separates them further, with DDR4 on the Intel side and DDR3 on the AMD side. Memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s for the i3-9100E and 29.9 GB/s for the FX-8350. ECC support is true for the i3-9100E and false for the FX-8350. The launch MSRP differs too, with the i3-9100E at $122 and the FX-8350 at $199.

The process node and foundry are also different: 14 nm at Intel and 32 nm at GlobalFoundries. The FX-8350's die area is larger at 315 mm², and its transistor count is 1,200 million, while the i3-9100E's die is 126 mm² with no recorded transistor count. The FX-8350's socket is AM3+ and the i3-9100E's is Socket 1151. The FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier, the i3-9100E has a locked one. The FX-8350's PCIe version is Gen 2, the i3-9100E's is Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The i3-9100E's generation is listed as Core i3 (Coffee Lake Refresh, and the FX-8350's generation is FX (Vishera). The FX-8350's part number is FD8350FRW8KHKFD8350FRHKBOX, and the i3-9100E's part number is SRGE0SRGQY.