CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4460 vs 8320 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 4460 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4460  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4460

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4460

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4460 vs FX 8320

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
9,739
FX 8320
10,352

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
3,086
FX 8320
2,066

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
4,300,000 MB/s
FX 8320
2,320,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
9,462
FX 8320
9,798

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
10,351
FX 8320
10,594

GeekBench

Core i5 4460
10,351
FX 8320
11,631

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i5 4460
6,664
FX 8320
8,183

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i5 4460
1,946
FX 8320
1,402

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4460  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 3.2 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.4 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1150
AM3+
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

Core i5 4460  vs
FX 8320 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 1 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 32 20
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 61.1°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,100 MHz N/A

power consumption

TDP 84W 125W
Annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 9.47 pt/W 7.8 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 101.56W
Intel Core i5 4460
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 10 comments.
Intel is dad!
Oc'ing to 4.7GHz wasn't worth it. Just got it stable and tried it. Multi = 14207, Single = 2693 on geekbench. Plus idle's about 40C and under load is about 60C max.
Popped the AMD FX-8320 to 4.5GHz easily and it absolutely smokes the Intel now xD Got a Geekbench 3 (64x) multicore score of 13762 and single core of 2614. After all, what's the point of getting one of these if you're not going to overclock to save a little money :P
i feel like their performance is a hella lot more equal then that, especially since they rated the damn integrated graphics XD plus the fx can be overclocked insanely high.
here is my problem with it. they score the integrated graphics. the fx processer doesn't have any! thats a lowball if i have ever seen one.
Gta 5 can run on this system 8 gb ram and nvidia 750 to 2 gb and intel i5 4gen 4660 3.4
amd there is a win
Perhaps because Intel has better single core score. All in all, I prefer the FX as it can be easily overclocked and decrease the gap between the single core score, while improving the overall score even further.
why did intel get better score, when obviously FX has a better performance, and its cheaper? because Intel has lower electric bill?
Why did you guys stop showing the prices of both products, put the add elsewhere!
comments powered by Disqus