Processors/Comparison
15 specifications
Intel Core i3-10100 vs AMD FX-4350
On paper, the AMD FX-4350 carries more L3 cache. Specifications describe what each chip is designed to do; how much of that either one holds under continuous load is a separate question.
Intel Core i3-10100
Intel · Core 10th generation · Desktop
AMD FX-4350
AMD · FX (Vishera) · Desktop
Cores and clocks
Cache and power
Platform
A check marks the higher figure only on rows where higher is unambiguously better. Rows without one are not ties; they are specifications where “better” has no meaning.
Reading the table
What the difference means.
Cores and threads
The Core i3-10100 has 4 cores and 8 threads against 4 and 4. More threads help with work that can be split into many pieces at once: rendering, compiling, video export, running several heavy programs together. They do little for work that runs on a few threads, which includes most games and most everyday software, where the speed of one core decides the result.
Cache
The FX-4350 carries 8 MB of L3 cache against 6 MB. Cache is fast memory on the chip, and a larger one means the cores wait on main memory less often. Games, large spreadsheets and compiling respond to it; rendering and video export, which stream through data in order, respond much less.
Power and cooling
The FX-4350 is rated at 125 W against 65 W. The rating is the heat the cooler has to move for the chip to hold its speed, and modern chips draw well above it in short bursts. A tower cooler or a liquid loop suits the FX-4350; the Core i3-10100 is easier to keep quiet and fits smaller cases. A chip whose cooling falls short does not fail. It slows down, and it does so after the first minute, which is why short benchmarks miss it.
Platform
They use different sockets, FCLGA1200 and AM3+, so moving from one to the other means a new motherboard. For an upgrade, that cost belongs in the comparison; for a new build, the newer platform is the one with later chips still to come.
Manufacturing process
The Core i3-10100 is built on a 14 nm process against 32 nm. A finer process generally does the same work for less power. The names are marketing labels rather than measurements, though, and they are not comparable between manufacturers, so treat the row as a sign of how recent the design is and no more.
Which to pick, on paper
- Rendering, compiling, video export
- Core i3-10100
- 8 threads against 4. Work that uses every thread scales with how many there are.
- A quiet or compact build
- Core i3-10100
- 65 W against 125 W: less heat to move, so a smaller cooler and slower fans.
What no table says
How much of its speed a processor keeps after the first minute depends on the cooling and the power limit of the machine it is in. If you own one of these, measure it: the test is free and runs in this browser.
Questions
- Is the Core i3-10100 better than the FX-4350?
- By need, on the specifications: rendering, compiling, video export: the Core i3-10100; a quiet or compact build: the Core i3-10100. No specification says how much speed either one keeps under a long load; that depends on the cooling and the power limit of the machine it is in, and it is what a sustained test measures.
- Do the Core i3-10100 and the FX-4350 use the same socket?
- No. The Core i3-10100 uses FCLGA1200 and the FX-4350 uses AM3+, so switching means a new motherboard.
- Which runs hotter, the Core i3-10100 or the FX-4350?
- The FX-4350 is rated at 125 W against 65 W, so it produces more heat under load and needs the larger cooler. How hot either one actually runs depends on the cooler and the case more than on the chip.
More comparisons
- Intel Core i3-10100 vs Intel Core i7-6700K
- Intel Core i3-10100 vs AMD Ryzen 3 3100
- Intel Core i3-10100 vs Intel Core i3-9100
- Intel Core i3-10100 vs Intel Core i7-4790K
- Intel Core i3-10100 vs Intel Core i3-12100
- AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i7-6700K
- AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i7-4790K
- AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i3-12100
- AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i3-12100F
- AMD FX-4350 vs AMD Ryzen 3 3100
Every figure on this table is a design target. None of it is a measurement.
Nothing above describes how a processor behaves twenty minutes into a sustained workload, which is where two chips with nearly identical specifications routinely diverge. A boost clock is a ceiling the vendor permits, not a rate the chip sustains, and whether it holds depends on the cooling, the case, the power profile and the room. None of those appear on a specification sheet.
We deliberately do not reduce these figures to a single score. A composite invented from specifications would look authoritative and measure nothing, and choosing the weights would be choosing the winner.