CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4690 vs 8320

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R10 32-bit and Passmark

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Unlocked

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core i5 4690 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4690  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

Intel Core i5 4690

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 4690

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4690

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4690

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 2,237 vs 1,402 Around 60% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,515 vs 3,987 Around 90% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Marginally newer May, 2014 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 27,283 vs 20,870 More than 30% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
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
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4690 vs FX 8320

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i5 4690
27,283
FX 8320
20,870
Core i5 4690 FX 8320 @ anandtech.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

Core i5 4690
7,515
FX 8320
3,987
Core i5 4690 FX 8320 @ anandtech.com

Passmark

Core i5 4690
7,661
FX 8320
8,183
Core i5 4690 FX 8320 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i5 4690
2,237
FX 8320
1,402

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4690  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1150
AM3+
Is unlocked No Yes
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
XOP
SSE3
FMA3
SSE2
FMA4
EM64T
F16C
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AVX 2.0
AES
SSE Family
FMA
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

Typical power consumption N/A 101.56W

details

Core i5 4690  vs
FX 8320 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 1 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

gpu

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,200 MHz N/A
Intel Core i5 4690
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus