AMD FX-9800P vs Intel Core i3-3240 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors along a clear line: the AMD FX-9800P takes the lead in every Cinebench iteration, while the Intel Core i3-3240 dominates Geekbench. This is not a subtle difference; the FX-9800P wins five of the seven head-to-head tests, but the two Intel victories are decisive in their own right.

The FX-9800P’s Cinebench results are consistent and narrow. It beats the i3-3240 by 4.3% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 4.1% in R20 multicore, 4.1% in R20 singlecore, 4.2% in R23 multicore, and 4.1% in R23 singlecore. These are small but uniform margins, suggesting the AMD part has a slight edge in rendering workloads that scale with both core count and per-thread efficiency.

The Intel i3-3240, however, turns the tables in Geekbench. It wins multicore by 9.4% (1233 versus 1127) and singlecore by a massive 30.5% (650 versus 498). The singlecore gap is especially telling: the i3-3240’s older Ivy Bridge architecture still delivers far stronger per-thread performance in this test, which likely reflects the higher 3.40 GHz base clock versus the FX-9800P’s 2.70 GHz base.

So the use-case split is straightforward. For Cinebench-style workloads, the FX-9800P is the pick. For Geekbench-style tasks, the i3-3240 wins, and in single-threaded Geekbench, it wins by a landslide. The data does not show a clear overall champion; it shows two processors with complementary strengths.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is wide, and it explains the benchmark split. The Intel Core i3-3240 is a desktop part built on Ivy Bridge, using a 22 nm process from Intel’s own fabs. It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock. Its cache layout is 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. It supports DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus, with PCIe Gen 3 at 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are Intel HD 2500. The die size is 94 mm², and it sits in Intel Socket 1155.

The AMD FX-9800P is a mobile part from the Bristol Ridge generation, built on Excavator architecture using a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a 2.70 GHz base clock and a 3.60 GHz boost clock. Its cache is smaller in L1 at 320 KB total, and L2 is 1 MB per module, with no L3 cache at all. It supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, with a rated memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 3 but only 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are Radeon R7 8CU. The die size is 250 mm², and it uses AMD Socket FP4. It is marked as end-of-life in production status.

The process node difference matters: 22 nm versus 28 nm, which partly explains the TDP gap. The i3-3240 has a 55 W TDP, while the FX-9800P is rated at just 15 W. That is a dramatic power envelope difference, and it reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning. The FX-9800P also packs 3,100 million transistors, far more than the i3-3240’s unspecified count, on a much larger die. The lack of L3 cache on the AMD part is notable, as is the presence of a boost clock that the Intel part lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the FX-9800P scores 210 against the i3-3240’s 201, a 4.3% win. R20 multicore shows 876 versus 840, a 4.1% margin. R20 singlecore is 123 against 118, again 4.1%. R23 multicore is 2088 versus 2000, a 4.2% edge. R23 singlecore is 294 versus 282, for 4.1%. The pattern is nearly identical across all five tests, which suggests the FX-9800P’s advantage in Cinebench is structural, not workload-specific.

The Geekbench results flip the script. In Geekbench multicore, the i3-3240 scores 1233 against the FX-9800P’s 1127, a 9.4% win. In Geekbench singlecore, the i3-3240 scores 650 against 498, a 30.5% blowout. That singlecore margin is the largest of any test in the comparison, and it dwarfs the AMD part’s Cinebench wins. The data indicates that the i3-3240’s per-thread performance in Geekbench is far superior, likely due to its higher base clock and more efficient Ivy Bridge cores.

What is curious is the divergence between the two benchmark suites. Cinebench and Geekbench measure different aspects of CPU performance, and here they tell opposite stories. The FX-9800P wins every Cinebench test by a small margin, while the i3-3240 wins every Geekbench test by a large margin. This is not a case where one chip is simply faster; it is a case where the two chips excel in different workload types.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD FX-9800P wins 5 of the 7 head-to-head tests, all in Cinebench. The Intel Core i3-3240 wins the remaining 2, both in Geekbench.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 wins Geekbench singlecore by 30.5%, scoring 650 versus the AMD FX-9800P’s 498. This is the biggest gap in any test.

Q: How much faster is the FX-9800P in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The FX-9800P scores 2088 versus 2000 for the i3-3240, a 4.2% advantage. The margin is similar across all Cinebench versions, ranging from 4.1% to 4.3%.

Q: Does the i3-3240 have a boost clock?

A: No. The i3-3240 has a fixed base clock of 3.40 GHz with no boost clock listed. The FX-9800P has a 2.70 GHz base clock and a 3.60 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-3240 has a 55 W TDP, while the AMD FX-9800P is rated at 15 W. The FX-9800P uses significantly less power, consistent with its mobile market segment.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The AMD FX-9800P supports DDR4, while the Intel Core i3-3240 supports DDR3. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

The Verdict

The data does not crown a single winner; it identifies two distinct profiles. The AMD FX-9800P is the better choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, where it consistently outperforms the i3-3240 by roughly 4% across every version of the test. Its 4 cores and 4 threads, combined with a boost clock up to 3.60 GHz, give it a steady edge in these multi-threaded rendering tasks. It also does so at a 15 W TDP, which is remarkably low compared to the i3-3240’s 55 W.

The Intel Core i3-3240, however, is the clear winner for Geekbench-style workloads, particularly single-threaded ones. Its 30.5% singlecore Geekbench win is a dominant result, and its 9.4% multicore Geekbench win shows that its 2 cores and 4 threads, at a higher 3.40 GHz base clock, can still outpace the AMD part in this suite. This suggests the i3-3240 is better suited for applications that favor strong per-thread performance over raw core count.

For a desktop user running Cinebench-heavy tasks, the FX-9800P is the data-backed pick. For a user prioritizing Geekbench-style single-threaded performance, the i3-3240 is clearly superior. The FX-9800P is also the only one of the two with an end-of-life production status, while the i3-3240 has no such status listed. Neither chip has a launch MSRP in the database, so no pricing comparison is available. The choice comes down to workload: rendering favors AMD, general single-threaded speed favors Intel.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-3240 | AMD FX-9800P |

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

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1155 | AMD Socket FP4 |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Excavator |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge | Bristol Ridge |

| Generation | Core i3 (Ivy Bridge) | FX (Bristol Ridge) |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not listed | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 94 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per module) |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

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

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2500 | Radeon R7 8CU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-09-02 | 2016-05-30 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SR0RH | FM980PADY44AB |