AMD FX-9830P vs Intel Core i3-4330 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents an unusually clear picture for this pairing. Across every tested workload, the Intel Core i3-4330 finishes ahead of the AMD FX-9830P. The head-to-head results show five wins for the Intel part and zero for the AMD part. That does not mean the FX-9830P is without merit, but its advantages do not appear in the Cinebench suite used for these comparisons.

The Intel Core i3-4330 wins in every category where the database has direct measurements. In multi-threaded rendering tests, it leads by a consistent margin. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the i3-4330 scoring 298 against 282 for the FX-9830P, a 5.7% advantage. That same 5.7% gap repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Intel chip scores 1245 versus 1178. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core as well: 2966 versus 2806, again 5.7%. The consistency of that delta across three generations of the Cinebench renderer suggests the performance relationship between these two processors is stable and not workload-specific within this benchmark family.

Single-threaded results follow the same direction. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-4330 scores 175 against 166, a 5.4% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 418 versus 396, a 5.6% advantage. These are modest but consistent margins. The Intel chip's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz, combined with its Haswell architecture, appears to deliver better per-thread performance than the FX-9830P's 3.00 GHz base clock, even though the AMD part can boost to 3.70 GHz.

The FX-9830P does have structural advantages that the Cinebench numbers do not capture. It offers four physical cores rather than the i3-4330's two physical cores with Hyper-Threading. It also includes a more substantial integrated GPU, the Radeon R7 8CU, and supports DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR3 and has no published memory bandwidth figure in the database. For workloads that stress the integrated graphics or memory subsystem, the AMD part could be the stronger option, but the available data does not include such tests.

The average benchmark score places the i3-4330 at 1020 and the FX-9830P at 1006. That puts the Intel chip in the 28th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the AMD chip sits at the 27th percentile. These are essentially adjacent positions in the overall distribution. The nearest rivals for each processor reinforce how close these two parts are in aggregate performance. The i3-4330's closest neighbor is the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 with an average score of 1022, a difference of -0.2%. The FX-9830P's closest neighbor is the Intel Core i7-880 at 1006, a difference of 0%. In the broader context of the database, these two CPUs occupy nearly the same performance tier.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict for users whose primary concern is CPU rendering performance: the Intel Core i3-4330 is the better choice. It wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The margins range from 5.4% to 5.7%, which is meaningful for a comparison between two processors that otherwise sit side by side in the database. The i3-4330 also posts the higher average benchmark score at 1020 against 1006, and a slightly better percentile ranking at 28th against 27th percentile.

Buyers who need a low-power APU with modern memory support may prefer the AMD FX-9830P. Its TDP of 35 watts is substantially lower than the i3-4330's 54 watts. It supports DDR4 memory, which the Intel part does not match. It has four physical cores, a higher boost clock, and a much larger transistor count at 3,100 million transistors on a 28 nm process node. The FX-9830P also carries integrated graphics with 8 compute units, an advantage for systems that will not use a separate GPU.

The FX-9830P is a mobile-class processor on AMD Socket FP4 and is listed as end-of-life production status. The i3-4330 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1150 from 2013 with a Haswell Core i3 generation label. The FX-9830P reached the market in 2016 under AMD's FX Bristol Ridge generation. For a desktop user building a rendering workload machine, the i3-4330 wins on the recorded Cinebench metrics. For a laptop or low-power chassis design, the FX-9830P offers capabilities the Intel part cannot offer, but the database does not provide comparative tests for those capabilities.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The i3-4330 uses dual-channel DDR3 while the FX-9830P uses dual-channel DDR4. Each part has its own socket and platform ecosystem. The i3-4330 has 1,400 million transistors on a 22 nm Intel process, while the FX-9830P has 3,100 million transistors on 28 nm GlobalFoundries fabrication.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most telling result in the head-to-head data is the repeated 5.7% margin in multi-core tests. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives the i3-4330 a score of 298 against 282 for the FX-9830P. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats that exact 5.7% gap with scores of 1245 against 1178. Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the pattern at 2966 against 2806, preserving the 5.7% delta exactly. Three different versions of the same rendering benchmark, three identical percentage differences. That level of consistency is rare in processor comparisons, and it strongly suggests the multi-core performance difference is a stable property of these two designs.

Single-core results tell the same story with slightly smaller margins. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the i3-4330 at 175 against 166, a 5.4% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core records 418 against 396, a 5.6% lead. The Intel chip's single-core advantage is real, measurable, and reproducible across benchmark generations.

The average benchmark scores in the database place the i3-4330 at 1020, which is 0.3% above the Intel Core i3-4160 at 1020 versus its average of 1017. The FX-9830P at 1006 sits 0% different from the Intel Core i7-880 at 1006. The i3-4330 is also within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U at 1024, a -0.3% difference. The FX-9830P is within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-2630QM at 292 and 0% of the Intel Core i5-10210Y at 1006. These nearest rival figures confirm that both CPUs are near the 1000 to 1024 average score band, with the i3-4330 sitting at 1020 and the FX-9830P at 1006.

The Intel Core i3-4330 wins 5 benchmarks and the FX-9830P wins 0 benchmarks in the recorded head-to-head set. The largest margin is 5.7% in multi-core tests. The smallest margin is 5.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core. No test in the set goes the other way.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4330 scores 2966 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD FX-9830P scores 2806. This gives the Intel chip a 5.7% lead.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3-4330 scores 418 against 396 for the FX-9830P, a 5.6% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-4330 scores 175 against 166, a 5.4% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The i3-4330 has an average benchmark score of 1020, and the FX-9830P has an average score of 1006. The Intel chip sits at the 28th percentile of all CPUs while the AMD chip sits at the 27th percentile.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9830P have any advantages over the Intel chip?

A: Yes. The FX-9830P has a lower TDP of 35 watts versus 54 watts for the i3-4330. It supports DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, includes four physical cores, a boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus 3.50 GHz base on the Intel chip, and an integrated Radeon R7 8CU GPU. The i3-4330 uses DDR3 and has an Intel HD 4600 integrated GPU.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i3-4330 is within 0.3% of the Intel Core i3-4160 and 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U. The FX-9830P matches the Intel Core i7-880 with a 0% difference and sits within 0.1% of the Intel Processor N100.

Q: What are the physical core and thread configurations?

A: The Intel Core i3-4330 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD FX-9830P has 4 cores and 4 threads. The caches differ as well: the i3-4330 has 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core with 4 MB shared L3, while the FX-9830P has 320 KB L1 total and 1 MB L2 per module with no L3 cache listed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-4330 uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, fabricated by Intel, with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD FX-9830P uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process, fabricated by GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The AMD chip packs over twice the transistor count into a substantially larger die, but it still trails the Intel chip in the recorded CPU benchmarks.

The core configurations differ in an important way. The i3-4330 has 2 physical cores with 4 threads, a classic Hyper-Threading setup. The FX-9830P has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading per core. Despite having twice the physical core count, the AMD chip loses the multi-core Cinebench tests by 5.7%. This indicates the Excavator cores are significantly less efficient than the Haswell cores in rendering workloads.

Clock speeds tell a partial story. The i3-4330 runs at a 3.50 GHz base clock with no boost clock listed. The FX-9830P runs at 3.00 GHz base and boosts to 3.70 GHz. The AMD chip has the higher peak frequency, but the Intel chip still wins every benchmark. Architecture efficiency appears to matter more than raw clock rate in this comparison.

Cache hierarchies are also quite different. The i3-4330 uses 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, with a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The FX-9830P has 320 KB L1 total and 1 MB L2 per module, with no L3 cache listed in the database. The Intel chip's shared L3 cache of 4 MB is a structural advantage for workloads that benefit from a large unified cache. The AMD chip relies on its per-module L2 and has no L3 tier at all.

Memory support diverges sharply. The i3-4330 supports DDR3 in a dual-channel configuration. The FX-9830P supports DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel part has no memory bandwidth figure listed. The AMD chip's DDR4 support and higher bandwidth could benefit memory-sensitive workloads, but the Cinebench results do not reflect that advantage.

Integrated graphics also differ. The i3-4330 includes Intel HD 4600. The FX-9830P includes Radeon R7 8CU. The AMD part has more compute units in its integrated GPU, which may matter for systems without a discrete graphics card. The Intel part has no such GPU advantage in the data.

Platform positioning separates these parts clearly. The i3-4330 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1150, part of the Core i3 Haswell generation, released in 2013. The FX-9830P is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP4, part of the FX Bristol Ridge generation, released in 2016. The AMD part is listed as end-of-life production status, while the Intel part has no production status listed. PCIe support is Gen 3 for both, though the FX-9830P specifies 8 lanes from the CPU only. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.