FX-8320E vs EPYC 8324P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8324P outperforms FX-8320E by a whopping 1053% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 165 | 1925 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.83 | 0.82 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 7.65 | 1.26 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) | 2 September 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,895 | $147 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 8324P has 2196% better value for money than FX-8320E.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8324P and FX-8320E basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.65 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 8192 KB |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 4x 73 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 71 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 35,500 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | no data | Min: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 V |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8324P and FX-8320E compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | SP6 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8324P and FX-8320E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8324P and FX-8320E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8324P and FX-8320E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8324P and FX-8320E.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | n/a |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.64 | 2.83 |
| Recency | 18 September 2023 | 2 September 2014 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 8 |
| Threads | 64 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 95 Watt |
EPYC 8324P has a 1053% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
FX-8320E, on the other hand, has 89% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 8324P is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD FX-8320E in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 8324P is a server/workstation processor while FX-8320E is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
