AMD FX-9830P vs Intel Core i3-8130U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-8130U wins all seven recorded head-to-head comparisons against the AMD FX-9830P. The largest margin appears in Geekbench single-core, where the Intel part scores 898 against AMD's 605, a 32.6% advantage. That is a substantial gap, and it reflects a fundamental difference in per-thread performance between the two designs.

In multi-threaded workloads, the Intel chip still leads, though by a much narrower margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the i3-8130U at 2995 versus 2806 for the FX-9830P, a 6.3% difference. The same 6.3% delta repeats across Cinebench R15 multi-core (301 versus 282) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (1257 versus 1178). This consistency suggests the AMD processor's four physical cores are competitive with Intel's two cores plus Hyper-Threading, but not enough to overcome the Intel design's efficiency advantage.

Single-core Cinebench results follow a similar pattern to Geekbench. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3-8130U scores 422 against 396, a 6.2% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 177 versus 166, again a 6.2% gap. The Geekbench single-core result is the outlier, with a far larger 32.6% delta. This is notable because it suggests the Intel architecture excels in the specific workloads that Geekbench emphasizes, while Cinebench's single-thread test is less lopsided.

The multi-core Geekbench result shows the Intel part at 1762 versus 1606, an 8.9% advantage. This is slightly larger than the Cinebench multi-core deltas, indicating that Geekbench's multi-threaded test benefits more from the Intel processor's per-core strength than Cinebench does.

Overall, the recorded data shows the i3-8130U as the clear winner in every measured category, but the magnitude of the victory varies significantly by workload. In Cinebench tests, the AMD chip is close, trailing by roughly 6% in both single and multi-core versions. In Geekbench, the gap widens, especially in single-core where the Intel part is nearly a third faster.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the seven benchmark comparisons, the Intel Core i3-8130U wins everywhere. There is no recorded test where the AMD FX-9830P takes the lead. However, the degree of competitiveness differs by workload type, which matters for real-world usage.

The AMD FX-9830P is least disadvantaged in Cinebench multi-core tests. Its four physical cores, running at a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz, deliver scores within 6.3% of the Intel part. For applications that scale well across cores, such as video rendering or 3D modeling, the FX-9830P can keep pace reasonably well. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2806 is not far off the i3-8130U's 2995, so the AMD chip remains usable in these scenarios, just slower.

The Intel Core i3-8130U excels in single-threaded performance, as evidenced by the Geekbench single-core result. A score of 898 compared to 605 gives it a 32.6% advantage, which is substantial for everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and light photo editing, where most workloads are single-threaded. The i3-8130U's higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz, combined with a more modern architecture, drives this advantage.

For multi-threaded Geekbench, the i3-8130U also wins, but the margin is smaller at 8.9%. The AMD part's extra cores help narrow the gap, yet the Intel processor's superior per-core throughput still carries the day.

If the workload is heavily parallel and the software is optimized for multiple cores, the FX-9830P is a viable alternative, though still slower. If the workload is mostly single-threaded, the i3-8130U is the clear choice, with a commanding lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher score in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i3-8130U scores 2995, while the AMD FX-9830P scores 2806. The Intel part leads by 6.3%.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Geekbench?

A: The Intel Core i3-8130U scores 898, and the AMD FX-9830P scores 605. That is a 32.6% advantage for Intel.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9830P win any benchmark against the Intel Core i3-8130U?

A: No. Across all seven recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Intel Core i3-8130U wins every test.

Q: What is the difference in multi-core scores for Cinebench R20?

A: The Intel Core i3-8130U scores 1257, and the AMD FX-9830P scores 1178. The delta is 6.3% in favor of Intel.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R15 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i3-8130U scores 301, and the AMD FX-9830P scores 282, giving Intel a 6.3% lead.

Q: Is the Geekbench multi-core result closer than the single-core result?

A: Yes. The multi-core gap is 8.9% (1762 versus 1606), while the single-core gap is 32.6% (898 versus 605).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every core specification. The AMD FX-9830P has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-8130U has 2 cores and 4 threads. Both support the same thread count, but the AMD chip relies on physical cores while the Intel chip uses Hyper-Threading.

Base clocks differ: the FX-9830P runs at 3.00 GHz, and the i3-8130U runs at 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the AMD part reaching 3.70 GHz and the Intel part reaching 3.40 GHz. The AMD chip has a higher base clock but a lower boost clock relative to its own base, while the Intel chip has a lower base but a more modest boost.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The FX-9830P is rated at 35 W, while the i3-8130U is rated at 15 W. This means the Intel processor consumes substantially less power, which is relevant for thin-and-light laptops.

Sockets are different: the AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP4, and the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 1356. Neither is upgradeable in a traditional sense, as both are mobile processors.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the AMD part specifies dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Intel part has no recorded memory bus or bandwidth data. Cache configurations also differ. The FX-9830P has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache. The i3-8130U has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor's shared L3 cache is a notable advantage for frequently accessed data.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the FX-9830P includes Radeon R7 8CU, while the i3-8130U includes UHD 620. The AMD chip supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part has no recorded PCIe specification.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FX-9830P uses the Excavator architecture, part of the Bristol Ridge family, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has a die size of 250 mm² and contains 3,100 million transistors. The design is based on modules, with L2 cache organized as 1 MB per module. There is no L3 cache at all, which is unusual for a modern processor and likely contributes to its lower performance in latency-sensitive workloads.

The Intel Core i3-8130U uses the Kaby Lake architecture, specifically the Kaby Lake-R refresh, built on a 14 nm process at Intel. The die size is 123 mm², and the design is significantly smaller and more power-efficient. Transistor count is not recorded for the Intel part, but the 14 nm process allows for a much denser and more efficient layout. The i3-8130U includes 4 MB of shared L3 cache, which the AMD chip lacks.

The production status differs: the FX-9830P is end-of-life, while the i3-8130U is active. The AMD chip was released on 2016-05-30, and the Intel chip on 2018-02-12, so the Intel part is newer by nearly two years. This age difference is visible in the architecture improvements: Kaby Lake benefits from a more advanced process node, a smaller die, and a proper cache hierarchy.

The AMD FX-9830P is built for a higher power envelope of 35 W, which suggests it was intended for larger laptops or devices with better cooling. The Intel i3-8130U, at 15 W, is designed for ultraportables. The architecture reflects this: the AMD chip uses more silicon and power to achieve its performance, while the Intel chip achieves comparable or better results with far less power.

ECC memory is not supported by either processor. Both are mobile parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Intel Core i3-8130U is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. It wins all seven head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 6.2% to 32.6%. The single-core advantage is particularly pronounced in Geekbench, where the Intel chip is nearly a third faster. This makes the i3-8130U the better choice for general-purpose computing, where single-threaded performance dominates.

However, the AMD FX-9830P is not without merit. Its four physical cores keep it within 6.3% of the Intel chip in Cinebench multi-core tests, which means that in heavily threaded workloads, the gap is modest. For users running rendering or encoding tasks that scale well, the FX-9830P is a serviceable option, though still slower.

The power consumption difference is a decisive factor for mobile use. The i3-8130U's 15 W TDP versus the FX-9830P's 35 W TDP means the Intel chip will generate less heat and drain batteries more slowly. For laptops, this is often more important than raw benchmark scores.

The i3-8130U also benefits from a newer architecture and a shared 4 MB L3 cache, which the FX-9830P lacks entirely. This cache difference likely explains part of the single-core performance gap, as frequently used data can be stored closer to the cores.

Given the benchmark results, the Intel Core i3-8130U is the recommended choice for most users, especially those who prioritize single-threaded performance and power efficiency. The AMD FX-9830P is a competent multi-threaded performer for its age, but it cannot match the Intel part in any measured test. For anyone choosing between these two, the data is clear: pick the Intel Core i3-8130U.