Celeron T3300 vs FX-8320
Aggregate performance score
FX-8320 outperforms Celeron T3300 by a whopping 758% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320 and Celeron T3300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1558 | 3004 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 2.58 | 1.08 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | no data |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
FX-8320 and Celeron T3300 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) | no data |
| Threads | 8 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | no data |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8320 and Celeron T3300 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM3+ | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and Celeron T3300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
Security technologies
FX-8320 and Celeron T3300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320 and Celeron T3300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and Celeron T3300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and Celeron T3300.
| PCIe version | n/a | no 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.
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 | 0.40 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 1 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 35 Watt |
FX-8320 has a 757.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron T3300, on the other hand, has 257.1% lower power consumption.
The FX-8320 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron T3300 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8320 is a desktop processor while Celeron T3300 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and Celeron T3300, 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.
