CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 8320E vs 4350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

FX 8320E
7.1
FX 4350
6.7
Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

FX 8320E
7.8
FX 4350
8.0
Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

FX 8320E
9.7
FX 4350
9.9
Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 1 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 8320E
7.7
FX 4350
7.8
Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

FX 8320E
7.5
FX 4350
7.5

Winner
AMD FX 8320E 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8320E  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

AMD FX 8320E

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD FX 8320E

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 8320E

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320E

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 4 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better PassMark score 9,309 vs 5,268 More than 75% better PassMark score
Front view of AMD FX 4350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 4350

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.2 GHz More than 30% higher clock speed
Better 3DMark11 physics score 7,140 vs 4,311 More than 65% better 3DMark11 physics score
Much lower annual home energy cost 30.11 $/year vs 59.66 $/year Around 50% lower annual home energy cost
Better performance per watt 6.26 pt/W vs 2.96 pt/W More than 2x better performance per watt
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 109.5 $/year vs 173.45 $/year More than 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Marginally newer Apr, 2013 vs Feb, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 4,469 vs 3,560 More than 25% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.16 GHz vs 4 GHz Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8320E vs 4350

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 8320E
12,023
FX 4350
13,999
FX 8320E FX 4350 @ anandtech.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 8320E
3,560
FX 4350
4,469
FX 8320E FX 4350 @ anandtech.com

Passmark

FX 8320E
9,309
FX 4350
5,268

Passmark (Single Core)

FX 8320E
1,563
FX 4350
1,524

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 8320E  vs
4350 
Clock speed 3.2 GHz 4.2 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.4 GHz 4.3 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
AM3+
Is unlocked Yes Yes
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

FX 8320E  vs
4350 
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 8 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 5.27 GHz 5.1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4 GHz 5.16 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.27 GHz 5.1 GHz

power consumption

TDP 95W 125W
Annual home energy cost 59.66 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 173.45 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 2.96 pt/W 6.26 pt/W
Typical power consumption N/A 101.56W
AMD FX 8320E
Report a correction
AMD FX 4350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus