Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U vs FX-8320

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8320
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.56
Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U
2019
4 cores / 8 threads, 15 Watt
4.89
+37.4%

Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U outperforms FX-8320 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320 and Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15451259
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD Ryzen 7
Power efficiency2.6029.73
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Picasso (2019−2022)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)8 April 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8320 and Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads88
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz4 GHz
Bus typeno dataPCIe 3.0
Multiplierno data23
L1 cacheno data128K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm12 nm
Die size315 mm2209.78 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million4940 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 Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM3+FP5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320 and Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 10

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U.

PCIe versionn/a3.0
PCI Express lanesno data12

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
Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U 4.89
+37.4%

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
Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U 7485
+37.5%

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
Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U 946
+106%

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 1808
Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U 3047
+68.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.56 4.89
Recency 23 October 2012 8 April 2019
Physical cores 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 15 Watt

FX-8320 has 100% more physical cores.

Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U, on the other hand, has a 37.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8320 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U, 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 Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U
Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U

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
3.5 139 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8320 or Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.