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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron U3405

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron U3405

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 14.63W vs 101.56W 6.9x lower typical power consumption
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year vs 30.11 $/year 6.9x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year vs 109.5 $/year 6.9x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 1 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 1.06 GHz More than 3.2x higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 6.95 pt/$ vs 0.26 pt/$ More than 26.8x better performance per dollar
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.56 GHz vs 1.07 GHz More than 4.2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 2 MB 4x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More cores 8 vs 2 6 more cores; run more applications at once
Much better PassMark score 8,183 vs 684 Around 12x better PassMark score
Much better performance per watt 7.79 pt/W vs 1.55 pt/W More than 5x better performance per watt
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More threads 8 vs 2 6 more threads
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.75 GHz vs 1.07 GHz Around 4.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Aug, 2010 Release date over 2 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron U3405 vs FX 8320

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron U3405  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 1.06 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Octa core
Socket type
BGA 1288
AM3+

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

power consumption

TDP 18W 125W
Annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 1.55 pt/W 7.79 pt/W
Typical power consumption 14.63W 101.56W

details

Celeron U3405  vs
FX 8320 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 8
L2 cache 1 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 2 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 382,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 14 20

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.07 GHz 4.56 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.07 GHz 4.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.07 GHz 4.56 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics N/A
Number of displays supported 2 N/A
GPU clock speed 166 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 500 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 17,066.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Celeron U3405
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus