Winner
AMD FX 8320
CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8320 based on its .
See full details| | Intel Core i5 670 vs AMD FX 8320 |
| | Is hyperthreaded Yes | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Much more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core | | Better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score 1.21 |
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Is unlocked Yes |
| | Significantly more l3 cache 8 MB | | More cores 8 |
by Ramish-Zafar (Jun, 2014)The enthusiast has managed to overclock the processor to a staggering 8171.53 MHz.
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Core i5 670 6.4 FX 8320 8.0 | |
| Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Core i5 670 8.2 FX 8320 7.8 | |
| 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? | |
| Core i5 670 6.6 FX 8320 9.6 | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 1 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Core i5 670 5.7 FX 8320 7.7 | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
| Core i5 670 7.1 FX 8320 8.0 | |
| | | AMD FX 8320CPUBoss Winner |
| |||||||
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 2x more l3 cache per core | |||
| Better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score | 1.21 | vs | 1.05 | More than 15% better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 94.87 $/year | vs | 109.5 $/year | Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| Significantly more l3 cache | 8 MB | vs | 4 MB | 2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 2 | 6 more cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.73 GHz | More than 5% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 9,317 | vs | 2,780.7 | More than 3.2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 8,183 | vs | 3,224 | More than 2.5x better PassMark score | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 5.89 pt/$ | vs | 1.78 pt/$ | More than 3.2x better performance per dollar | |||
| Better geekbench (32-bit) score | 9,886 | vs | 5,019 | More than 95% better geekbench (32-bit) score | |||
| Significantly more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Marginally newer | Oct, 2012 | vs | Jan, 2010 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 20,870 | vs | 11,294 | Around 85% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 6.75 pt/W | vs | 4.57 pt/W | Around 50% better performance per watt | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 30.11 $/year | vs | 36.29 $/year | More than 15% lower annual home energy cost | |||
summary | Core i5 670 | vs | FX 8320 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.46 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.73 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Octa core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 1156 | |||
| AM3+ | |||
| Is unlocked | No | Yes | |
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | 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 | |||
| F16C | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| AES | |||
| SSE Family | |||
| FMA | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 2 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 733 MHz | N/A | |
details | Core i5 670 | vs | FX 8320 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 8 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.78 GHz | 4.65 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.78 GHz | 4.82 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 2,780.7 | 9,317 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.78 GHz | 4.65 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 73W | 125W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 36.29 $/year | 30.11 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 94.87 $/year | 109.5 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 4.57 pt/W | 6.75 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 97.7W | 101.56W | |
| Intel Core i5 670 | AMD FX 8320 |
| VS | |
| $143 | $170 | |
| AMD FX 8320 vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $110 | |
| AMD FX 8320 vs 6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $195 | |
| AMD FX 8320 vs Intel Core i5 4440 | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $195 | |
| AMD FX 8320 vs Intel Core i5 4460 | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $234 | |
| AMD FX 8320 vs Intel Core i5 4670K | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $215 | |
| AMD FX 8320 vs Intel Core i5 3570K | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $115 | |
| AMD FX 8320 vs 6350 | ||
| VS | |
| $335 | $229 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | $161 | |
| Intel Core i3 3110M vs N3530 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| Intel Core i3 3217U vs Celeron N2830 | ||
| VS | |
| $335 | $340 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | $105 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| AMD A10 5750M vs Intel Core i7 4700MQ | ||
| VS | |
| Samsung Exynos 5 Octa vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 | ||