A6-4400M vs FX-8320

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8320
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.56
+439%

FX-8320 outperforms A6-4400M by a whopping 439% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320 and A6-4400M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15452757
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.601.72
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Trinity (2012−2013)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8320 and A6-4400M 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 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.2 GHz
L1 cacheno data96 KB
L2 cache8192 KB1 MB (shared)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size315 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million1,178 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 A6-4400M 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+FS1r2
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and A6-4400M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320 and A6-4400M are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and A6-4400M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3unknown

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 7520G

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and A6-4400M.

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
+439%
A6-4400M 0.66

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
+439%
A6-4400M 1010

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

FX-8320 460
+44.7%
A6-4400M 318

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

FX-8320 1809
+349%
A6-4400M 403

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.56 0.66
Recency 23 October 2012 15 May 2012
Physical cores 8 2
Threads 8 2
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 35 Watt

FX-8320 has a 439.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

A6-4400M, on the other hand, has 257.1% lower power consumption.

The FX-8320 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-4400M in performance tests.

Note that FX-8320 is a desktop processor while A6-4400M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and A6-4400M, 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 A6-4400M
A6-4400M

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
3.3 179 votes

Rate A6-4400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8320 or A6-4400M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.