Xeon E3-1285 v4 vs FX-8320

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8320
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.56
Xeon E3-1285 v4
2015
4 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
5.10
+43.3%

Xeon E3-1285 v4 outperforms FX-8320 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15461227
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency2.604.90
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Broadwell-DT (2015)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)2 June 2015 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4 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 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.8 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB256 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size315 mm2160 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million1,400 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 Xeon E3-1285 v4 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
SocketAM3+FCLGA1150
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
eDRAMno data128 MB
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Idle Statesno data+
FDIno data+

Security technologies

FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data29.8 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel Iris Pro P6300
Max video memoryno data32 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Graphics max frequencyno data1.15 GHz
Execution Unitsno data48

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4.

PCIe versionn/a3.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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
Xeon E3-1285 v4 5.10
+43.3%

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
Xeon E3-1285 v4 7808
+43.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.56 5.10
Recency 23 October 2012 2 June 2015
Physical cores 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 95 Watt

FX-8320 has 100% more physical cores.

Xeon E3-1285 v4, on the other hand, has a 43.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 31.6% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E3-1285 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8320 is a desktop processor while Xeon E3-1285 v4 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1285 v4, 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
Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4
Xeon E3-1285 v4

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 1377 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 10 votes

Rate Xeon E3-1285 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8320 or Xeon E3-1285 v4, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.