Core i7-4700EQ vs FX-8320

CPU

GPU

Core i7-4700EQ

4 Cores8 Thrd47 WWMax: 3.4 GHz2013

Popular choices:

•••••••••

FX-8320

8 Cores8 Thrd125 WWMax: 4 GHz2012

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i7-4700EQ

4 / 8

5,417

0.0%

5,472

+1.0%

Athlon X4 830

Athlon X4 880K

Ryzen Embedded R1606G

FX-8140

Ryzen 7 5700

Ryzen AI Max PRO 390

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i7-4700EQ

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 47W instead of 125W, a 78W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 4600, while FX-8320 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,417 vs 5,472).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.

FX-8320

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $209 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Delivers 125.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-4700EQ.

Trade-offs

❌166% higher power demand at 125W vs 47W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-4700EQ can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-4700EQ

2013

FX-8320

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 47W instead of 125W, a 78W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 4600, while FX-8320 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $209 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Delivers 125.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-4700EQ.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,417 vs 5,472).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.3 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.

Trade-offs

❌166% higher power demand at 125W vs 47W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-4700EQ can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is FX-8320 better than Core i7-4700EQ?

Yes. FX-8320 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 11.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1% better PassMark, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, FX-8320 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 11.9% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, FX-8320 is the better fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

FX-8320 is the smarter buy today. FX-8320 is $209 cheaper on MSRP at $169 MSRP versus $378 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 125.9% better value on MSRP (32.4 vs 14.3 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i7-4700EQ is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-4700EQ Benchmark Check

FX-8320 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-4700EQ	FX-8320
1080p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	105 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	85 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	116 FPS	120 FPS
high	89 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	72 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	66 FPS	65 FPS
medium	60 FPS	58 FPS
high	46 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i7-4700EQ Open FX-8320

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-4700EQ	FX-8320
1080p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	132 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	122 FPS	137 FPS
high	113 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	90 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	108 FPS	137 FPS
medium	98 FPS	137 FPS
high	78 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	57 FPS	120 FPS

Open Core i7-4700EQ Open FX-8320

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-4700EQ	FX-8320
1080p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS

Open Core i7-4700EQ Open FX-8320

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-4700EQ	FX-8320
1080p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS

Open Core i7-4700EQ Open FX-8320

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-4700EQ and FX-8320

Core i7-4700EQ

The Core i7-4700EQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 May 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Crystalwell (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 8192 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1364. Thermal design power (TDP): 47 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,417 points. Launch price was $149.

FX-8320

The FX-8320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,472 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-4700EQ packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the FX-8320 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8320 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i7-4700EQ versus 4 GHz on the FX-8320 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the FX-8320 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i7-4700EQ uses the Crystalwell (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the FX-8320 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-4700EQ scores 5,417 against the FX-8320's 5,472 — a 1% lead for the FX-8320.

Feature	Core i7-4700EQ	FX-8320
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	8 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz	4 GHz+18%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	3.5 GHz+46%
L3 Cache	8192 kB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	8192 kB+3100%
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Crystalwell (2013−2014)	Vishera (2012−2015)
PassMark	5,417	5,472+1%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	4,500
Geekbench 6 Single	—	458
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,791

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-4700EQ uses the BGA1364 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8320 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1600 memory speed. Both support up to 32 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	Core i7-4700EQ	FX-8320
Socket	BGA1364	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	DDR3-1866
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the FX-8320 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-4700EQ) vs AMD-V (FX-8320). The Core i7-4700EQ includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 4600), while the FX-8320 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-4700EQ targets Mobile, FX-8320 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: FX-8320 rivals Core i5-3570.

Feature	Core i7-4700EQ	FX-8320
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics 4600	—
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Mobile	Productivity

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-4700EQ launched at $378 MSRP, while the FX-8320 debuted at $169. On MSRP ($378 vs $169), the FX-8320 is $209 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-4700EQ delivers 14.3 pts/$ vs 32.4 pts/$ for the FX-8320 — making the FX-8320 the 77.3% better value option.