A4-9120 vs FX-8320

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8320
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.56
+345%

FX-8320 outperforms A4-9120 by a whopping 345% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320 and A4-9120 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15452633
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataBristol Ridge
Power efficiency2.604.86
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)1 June 2017 (7 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8320 and A4-9120 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz2.5 GHz
L1 cacheno data160 KB
L2 cache8192 KB1 MB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million1200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8320 and A4-9120 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 configuration1no data
SocketAM3+BGA
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt10-15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and A4-9120. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataVirtualization,
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320 and A4-9120 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and A4-9120. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and A4-9120.

PCIe versionn/ano 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.

FX-8320 3.56
+345%
A4-9120 0.80

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.

FX-8320 5444
+347%
A4-9120 1217

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.56 0.80
Recency 23 October 2012 1 June 2017
Physical cores 8 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 10 Watt

FX-8320 has a 345% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

A4-9120, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1150% lower power consumption.

The FX-8320 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-9120 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8320 is a desktop processor while A4-9120 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and A4-9120, 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 FX-8320
FX-8320
AMD A4-9120
A4-9120

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.


4.2 1376 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 494 votes

Rate A4-9120 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8320 or A4-9120, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.