EPYC 9754S vs FX-8320

VS

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320 and EPYC 9754S processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1549not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency2.60no data
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Bergamo (2023)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)13 June 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$10,200

Detailed specifications

FX-8320 and EPYC 9754S 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)128
Threads8256
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.25 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.1 GHz
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm
Die size315 mm28x 73 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million71,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8320 and EPYC 9754S 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 configuration12
SocketAM3+SP5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 9754S. 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 9754S are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 9754S. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 9754S.

PCIe versionn/a5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 October 2012 13 June 2023
Physical cores 8 128
Threads 8 256
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 360 Watt

FX-8320 has 188% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9754S, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between FX-8320 and EPYC 9754S. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that FX-8320 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9754S is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and EPYC 9754S, 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 9754S
EPYC 9754S

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 1389 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 5 votes

Rate EPYC 9754S 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 9754S, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.