CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 8320 vs 8300 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

FX 8320
7.0
FX 8300
6.9
FX 8350
7.4
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

FX 8320
6.7
FX 8300
6.7
FX 8350
6.9
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

FX 8320
0.0
FX 8300
0.0
FX 8350
0.0
Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

FX 8320
0.0
FX 8300
0.0
FX 8350
0.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

FX 8320
5.6
FX 8300
6.1
FX 8350
5.7
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 8320
6.3
FX 8300
n.d.
FX 8350
6.5
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

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
Front view of AMD FX 8300

AMD FX 8300

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 8 MB vs 0 MB Compared to all cpus, 8 MB l3 cache is just OK
Higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3.3 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Much more l3 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0 MB/core Compared to all cpus, 1 MB/core l3 cache per core is just OK
Better PassMark score 8,183 vs 7,651 More than 5% better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.64 GHz vs 4.46 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.76 GHz vs 4.29 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD FX 8300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8300

Report a correction
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 4 GHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
Much lower typical power consumption 77.19W vs 101.56W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 70.5 °C vs 61.1 °C More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better geekbench 3 single core score 2,159 vs 2,066 Around 5% better geekbench 3 single core score
Better performance per watt 10.73 pt/W vs 7.93 pt/W More than 35% better performance per watt
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year vs 30.11 $/year Around 25% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Dec, 2012 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 2 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8320 vs 8300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
10,352
FX 8300
10,502

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
2,066
FX 8300
2,159

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
2,320,000 MB/s
FX 8300
2,420,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
9,798
FX 8300
9,123

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
10,594
FX 8300
10,686

GeekBench

FX 8320
11,631
FX 8300
10,686

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8320
8,183
FX 8300
7,651

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8320
1,402
FX 8300
1,350

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 8320  vs
8300 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Octa core Octa core
Socket type
AM3+
Is unlocked Yes Yes

features

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

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

details

FX 8320  vs
8300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 8
L2 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 0 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 0 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,200,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Die size 319 mm² 319 mm²
Clock multiplier 20 21
Voltage range 0.8 - 1.43V 0.83 - 1.43V
Operating temperature Unknown - 61.1°C Unknown - 70.5°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.64 GHz 4.46 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.76 GHz 4.29 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.64 GHz 4.46 GHz

power consumption

TDP 125W 95W
Annual home energy cost 30.11 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 109.5 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 7.93 pt/W 10.73 pt/W
Typical power consumption 101.56W 77.19W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction
AMD FX 8300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 3 comments.
Overclocking on this site is so wrong... It's different for everyone first of all, and the 8300 has less base power use and higher max operating temp. This means it has way more headroom for overclocking in most setups. Also, why would the air cooled OC be higher than the water cooled? Wrong wrong wrong. And Bob, benchmark data is unreliable at best. Note how some benchmarks favor the 8300 and others the 8320.
FX 8300 turbo boost is 4.2 Ghz!
FX 8300 benchmark=7623 FX 8320 benchmark=8024 No winner? Maybe in a delusional world!
comments powered by Disqus