AMD A8-9600 vs FX-4320

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

FX-4320
2.01

A8-9600 outperforms FX-4320 by 7% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

Comparing FX-4320 and A8-9600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking17941739
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money4.0014.13
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date23 October 2012 (11 years old)27 July 2017 (6 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$78
Current price$53 $31 (0.4x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance per price, higher is better.

A8-9600 has 253% better value for money than FX-4320.

Technical specs

FX-4320 and A8-9600 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed4 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.4 GHz
L1 cache192 KBno data
L2 cache4096 KB2048 KB
L3 cache4096 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2250 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million3,100 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on FX-4320 and A8-9600 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 configuration11
SocketAM3+AM4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and A8-9600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
FRTCno data1
FreeSyncno data1
PowerTuneno data+
TrueAudiono data+
PowerNowno data+
PowerGatingno data+
VirusProtectno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4320 and A8-9600 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and A8-9600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR4-2400
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon R7 Graphics
iGPU core countno data6
Endurono data+
UVDno data+
VCEno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-4320 and A8-9600 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPortno data+
HDMIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-4320 and A8-9600 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkanno data1

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4320 and A8-9600.

PCIe versionNot Listed3.0
PCI Express lanesno data8

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.

FX-4320 2.01
A8-9600 2.15
+7%

A8-9600 outperforms FX-4320 by 7% in our combined benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

FX-4320 3094
A8-9600 3300
+6.7%

A8-9600 outperforms FX-4320 by 7% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 2.01 2.15
Recency 23 October 2012 27 July 2017
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

We couldn't decide between FX-4320 and A8-9600. The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4320 and A8-9600, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

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


AMD FX-4320
FX-4320
AMD A8-9600
A8-9600

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.

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.6 122 votes

Rate AMD FX-4320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 892 votes

Rate AMD A8-9600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-4320 or A8-9600, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.