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 ST-Ericsson Nova A9500

Reasons to consider the
ST-Ericsson Nova A9500

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 1.2 GHz Around 3x higher clock speed
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs ARM A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More cores 8 vs 2 6 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 8 vs 2 6 more threads
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 1 years later

Features Key features of the Nova A9500  vs FX 8320 

clock speed

Nova A9500
1.2 GHz
FX 8320
3.5 GHz

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Nova A9500  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 1.2 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Octa core

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label ARM Mali 400 MP N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in

details

Nova A9500  vs
FX 8320 
Architecture ARM x86-64
Threads 2 8
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm

power consumption

Typical power consumption N/A 101.56W
ST-Ericsson Nova A9500
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus