EPYC 7532 vs FX-8320

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8320
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.43
EPYC 7532
2020
32 cores / 64 threads, 200 Watt
33.21
+868%

EPYC 7532 outperforms FX-8320 by a whopping 868% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320 and EPYC 7532 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1558118
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency2.5815.63
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)19 February 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8320 and EPYC 7532 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)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads864
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.3 GHz
Multiplierno data24
L1 cacheno data2 MB
L2 cache8192 KB16 MB
L3 cacheno data256 MB
Chip lithography32 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
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 EPYC 7532 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+Socket SP3
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 7532. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 7532 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 7532. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 7532.

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 3.43
EPYC 7532 33.21
+868%

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 5445
EPYC 7532 52755
+869%

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
EPYC 7532 1130
+146%

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 1811
EPYC 7532 9315
+414%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.43 33.21
Recency 23 October 2012 19 February 2020
Physical cores 8 32
Threads 8 64
Chip lithography 32 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 200 Watt

FX-8320 has 60% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7532, on the other hand, has a 868.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7532 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8320 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7532 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and EPYC 7532, 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 EPYC 7532
EPYC 7532

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 1405 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 28 votes

Rate EPYC 7532 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8320 or EPYC 7532, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.