FX-8320 vs EPYC 9754

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9754
2023
128 cores / 256 threads, 360 Watt
64.45
+1747%
FX-8320
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.49

EPYC 9754 outperforms FX-8320 by a whopping 1747% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9754 and FX-8320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking121548
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.03no data
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency16.632.59
Architecture codenameBergamo (2023)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date13 June 2023 (1 year ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$11,900no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9754 and FX-8320 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 cores1288 (Octa-Core)
Threads2568
Base clock speed2.25 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz4 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)8192 KB
L3 cache256 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography5 nm32 nm
Die size8x 73 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data61 °C
Number of transistors71,000 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-
Unlocked multiplier-+
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9754 and FX-8320 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 configuration21
SocketSP5AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)360 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9754 and FX-8320. 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 9754 and FX-8320 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9754 and FX-8320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9754 and FX-8320.

PCIe version5.0n/a
PCI Express lanes128no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 9754 64.45
+1747%
FX-8320 3.49

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.

EPYC 9754 100460
+1746%
FX-8320 5443

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 64.45 3.49
Recency 13 June 2023 23 October 2012
Physical cores 128 8
Threads 256 8
Chip lithography 5 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 360 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 9754 has a 1746.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

FX-8320, on the other hand, has 188% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 9754 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320 in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 9754 is a server/workstation processor while FX-8320 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9754 and FX-8320, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 9754
EPYC 9754
AMD FX-8320
FX-8320

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 36 votes

Rate EPYC 9754 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1385 votes

Rate FX-8320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 9754 or FX-8320, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.