Celeron 817 vs FX-8320E
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320E and Celeron 817 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1615 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.79 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 3.11 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $147 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-8320E and Celeron 817 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 16 |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8320E and Celeron 817 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Celeron 817. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320E and Celeron 817 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320E and Celeron 817. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320E and Celeron 817.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 17 Watt |
FX-8320E has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron 817, on the other hand, has 458.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between FX-8320E and Celeron 817. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that FX-8320E is a desktop processor while Celeron 817 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and Celeron 817, 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.
