EPYC 9845 vs FX-4320
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9845 outperforms FX-4320 by a whopping 4342% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-4320 and EPYC 9845 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1941 | 3 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.56 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 1.97 | 21.36 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $13,564 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-4320 and EPYC 9845 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 160 |
| Threads | 4 | 320 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4096 KB | 320 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-4320 and EPYC 9845 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 | 2 |
| Socket | AM3+ | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 390 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and EPYC 9845. 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 FX-4320 and EPYC 9845 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and EPYC 9845. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4320 and EPYC 9845.
| PCIe version | Not Listed | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.98 | 87.95 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 160 |
| Threads | 4 | 320 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 390 Watt |
FX-4320 has 310.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9845, on the other hand, has a 4341.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 3900% more physical cores and 7900% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9845 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-4320 in performance tests.
Note that FX-4320 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9845 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4320 and EPYC 9845, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
