A6-9400 vs FX-8320
Aggregate performance score
FX-8320 outperforms A6-9400 by a whopping 101% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320 and A6-9400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1548 | 2037 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 2.60 | 2.49 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 16 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
FX-8320 and A6-9400 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 160K |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 1 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 3,100 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8320 and A6-9400 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+ | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and A6-9400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320 and A6-9400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and A6-9400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2400 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Radeon R5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and A6-9400.
| PCIe version | n/a | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
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 | 3.43 | 1.71 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 16 March 2019 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 65 Watt |
FX-8320 has a 100.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
A6-9400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.
The FX-8320 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-9400 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and A6-9400, 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.
