Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX vs FX-4320
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX outperforms FX-4320 by a whopping 2828% 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 | 2244 | 46 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 18.43 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.80 | 6.39 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Shimada Peak (2025) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 23 July 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,899 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of FX-4320 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX: 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4096 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 4x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 33,260 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on FX-4320 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX 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 | AM3+ | sTR5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 350 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX. 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 Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX. 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 Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX.
| PCIe version | Not Listed | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 136 |
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 | 1.81 | 52.99 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 23 July 2025 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 24 |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 350 Watt |
FX-4320 has 268% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX, on the other hand, has a 2828% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD FX-4320 in performance tests.
Note that FX-4320 is a desktop processor while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
