Core i7-4860EQ
Popular choices:
FX-8320
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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 i7-4860EQ
2014Why buy it
- ✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 47W instead of 125W, a 78W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.7 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($434 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.
FX-8320
2012Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +19.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $265 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $434 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 155.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 12.7 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $434 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-4860EQ.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (5,472 vs 5,508).
- ❌166% higher power demand at 125W vs 47W.
Core i7-4860EQ
2014FX-8320
2012Why buy it
- ✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 47W instead of 125W, a 78W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +19.5% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $265 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $434 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 155.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 12.7 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $434 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-4860EQ.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.7 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($434 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (5,472 vs 5,508).
- ❌166% higher power demand at 125W vs 47W.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i7-4860EQ better than FX-8320?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.
Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i7-4860EQ | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 135 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 104 FPS | 118 FPS |
| ultra | 85 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 134 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 86 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 70 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 64 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 36 FPS |
Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i7-4860EQ | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 83 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 65 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 86 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 75 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 71 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 59 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 67 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 61 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 49 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 36 FPS | 120 FPS |
League of Legends
| Preset | Core i7-4860EQ | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
Valorant
| Preset | Core i7-4860EQ | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 138 FPS | 137 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-4860EQ and FX-8320
Core i7-4860EQ
Core i7-4860EQ
The Core i7-4860EQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Crystalwell (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1364. Thermal design power (TDP): 47 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,508 points. Launch price was $149.
FX-8320
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 i7-4860EQ packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the FX-8320 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8320 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Core i7-4860EQ versus 4 GHz on the FX-8320 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the FX-8320 (base: 1.8 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i7-4860EQ uses the Crystalwell (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the FX-8320 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-4860EQ scores 5,508 against the FX-8320's 5,472 — a 0.7% lead for the Core i7-4860EQ.
| Feature | Core i7-4860EQ | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 8 | 8 / 8+100% |
| Boost Clock | 3.2 GHz | 4 GHz+25% |
| Base Clock | 1.8 GHz | 3.5 GHz+94% |
| L3 Cache | 8 MB (total) | — |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 8192 kB+3100% |
| Process | 22 nm-31% | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Crystalwell (2013−2014) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| PassMark | 5,508 | 5,472 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 4,500 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 458 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 1,791 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i7-4860EQ uses the BGA1364 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8320 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i7-4860EQ | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1364 | AM3+ |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3-1866 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | No |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Core i7-4860EQ) / AMD-V (FX-8320). Primary use case: FX-8320 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: FX-8320 rivals Core i5-3570.
| Feature | Core i7-4860EQ | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | Yes |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Productivity |
Value Analysis
The Core i7-4860EQ launched at $434 MSRP, while the FX-8320 debuted at $169. On MSRP ($434 vs $169), the FX-8320 is $265 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-4860EQ delivers 12.7 pts/$ vs 32.4 pts/$ for the FX-8320 — making the FX-8320 the 87.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i7-4860EQ | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $434 | $169-61% |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.7 | 32.4+155% |
| Release Date | 2014 | 2012 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i7-4860EQ and FX-8320
