CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 8350 vs 8320

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

FX 8350
7.9
FX 8320
7.7
Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, PassMark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

FX 8350
8.5
FX 8320
8.3
Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

FX 8350
10.0
FX 8320
9.9
PassMark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 8350
6.9
FX 8320
7.2
Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

FX 8350
8.2
FX 8320
8.0

Winner
AMD FX 8350 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8350  based on its overclocking.

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 8350

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Much better 3DMark11 physics score 6,880 vs 6,200 More than 10% better 3DMark11 physics score
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 4 GHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.82 GHz Around 85% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score 1.11 vs 1.05 More than 5% better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 8,183 More than 10% better PassMark score
Slightly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,525 vs 1,402 Around 10% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,147 vs 9,317 Around 10% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 101.56W vs 159.66W More than 35% lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 30.11 $/year vs 56.1 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost
Better performance per dollar 6.53 pt/$ vs 5.44 pt/$ More than 20% better performance per dollar
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 109.5 $/year vs 159.62 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8350 vs 8320

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
10,956
FX 8320
9,798

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
6,880
FX 8320
6,200

Cinebench R11.5

FX 8350
6.94
FX 8320
6.28

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)

FX 8350
1.11
FX 8320
1.05

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

FX 8350
9,134
FX 8320
8,183

PassMark (Single Core) Data courtesy PassMark

FX 8350
1,525
FX 8320
1,402

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 8350  vs
8320 
Clock speed 4 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz 4 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

bus

Clock speed 2,600 MHz 2,600 MHz

details

FX 8350  vs
8320 
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 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 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 21 20
Voltage range 0.82 - 1.45V 0.8 - 1.43V

overclocking

Overclock popularity 709 63
Overclocked clock speed 4.71 GHz 4.66 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz 4.82 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 10,147 9,317
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.71 GHz 4.66 GHz

power consumption

TDP 125W 125W
Annual home energy cost 56.1 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 159.62 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 4.83 pt/W 6.39 pt/W
Typical power consumption 159.66W 101.56W

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 8350
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 11 comments.
It's literally the same chip. If you're planning on overclocking get the 8320 and save your money.
This is incorrect, 8350 is an optimized 8320. Power consumption of 8350 is lower than 8320.
because all they did with the 50 was OC it in the factory so it draws more power.
Why am I babbling about Ram? This is interesting! I did not notice this, If this is true then the performance is practically equal for a much better price! overclocking Overclock popularity 709 - 63 (no idea why we should care about how popular people think it is to overclock a CPU WTF? People surley are not this zombified ) Overclocked clock speed 4.74 GHz 4.67 GHz Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.98 GHz 4.88 GHz PassMark (Overclocked) 10,147 9,317 Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.74 GHz 4.67 GHz
FX-8320 Looks really nice, Much better price than the 8350 and you can get the same performance. Of'course the 8350 can be overclocked higher and ultimately in the end have better performance. But still you get much better price/performance with the FX-8320 And this is going to be my new Rig. With my new MSI R9 270 2GB dual fan Gaming series GPU, And with a new MSI 990 GD65 board, I love the MSI GD65 boards, I currently have a P55-GD65 Board running my i5 750, It has run great since 2009. I just hope the FX chip handles my older 4 sticks of ram, it is 8GB G.Skill Ripjaw 1600 DDR3, And I am sure everyone knows that the G.skill Ripjaw 1600 ram is touchy, Especially using 4 sticks of it. I cant even tighten the timings on this ram without it causing my rig not to start up, LOL Very cheap ram, You absolutely have to run it at factory settings or bust. But it works, And the speed actually does very well for 9-9-9-24-2T, But it is a shame you can't get the Ripjaws to go a little faster,
The octo-core FX chips draw a lot more power as you scale up the frequency; it's not a linear increase. This is why the TDP increases to 220W for the 4.7 GHz FX-9590, compared to just 125W for the 4.0 GHz FX-8350. The 8320's stock clock is just 3.5 GHz.
You're confusing the 8150 with the 8350. The 8150 is a Bulldozer, the 8350 is a Piledriver. In fact, the 8350 is nothing but a better-binned Piledriver core than an 8320. An 8320 will never out-perform an 8350 unless it is overclocked to a higher frequency. The very best Piledrivers are sold as the FX-9590, the next best as the FX-9370. Anything else that passes testing at 4 GHz are sold as FX-8350, and the rest are FX-8320. Although the yields are so good now that it seems lot of very good chips, capable of 4.5 GHz or even more, get downbinned to 8320's.
@Blind Sorry but not true at all. Both 8320 and 8350 are same arh,same pile driver cores,just 8350 are higher clocked at factory.*what means passed higher clock factory test,what have impact on overclock limits. Take a closer look on overclock limit of both.Some will go even higher,some less.,but much much more chances are on 8350 versus 8320. that is it. 8320 is somewhat crippled version of 8350 in mean of highest clock,temps,etc on testing,but as is factory adjusted to go down with clock to 3.5,comparing of factory min of 4.0 clock per core of 8350 that make diff of typical power consumption 101.6W for fx8320 vs 159.6W for 8350 ...obvious that purpose of each,and targeting user is different.
8320 is based on piledriver series which is an advanced series than bulldozer series in the 8350.So we get a little better performance in 8320 in some cases!
@353c6c92939dc945228813a2b217adf7:disqus take a close look at typical power consumption 101.6W vs 159.6W
Why is the 8320's energy cost so much lower than the 8350's? I checked other websites' reviews/tests and they are very close in power use.
comments powered by Disqus