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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron 320

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 320

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Intel Celeron 320 vs the AMD FX 4350.

Front view of AMD FX 4350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 4350

Report a correction
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed

Features Key features of the Celeron 320  vs FX 4350 

clock speed

Celeron 320
2.4 GHz
FX 4350
4.2 GHz

L2 cache

Celeron 320
0.25 MB
FX 4350
4 MB


FX 4350

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Celeron 320  vs
FX 4350 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Single core Quad core


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No 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


Celeron 320  vs
FX 4350 
Threads 1 4
L2 cache 0.25 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 90 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 125,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 18 21
Voltage range 1.25 - 1.4V 0.81 - 1.45V
Operating temperature Unknown - 67.7°C Unknown - 61.1°C

power consumption

TDP 84W 125W
Annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year 109.5 $/year
Typical power consumption 68.25W 101.56W
Intel Celeron 320
Report a correction
AMD FX 4350
Report a correction


comments powered by Disqus