Celeron D 326 vs FX-8320E
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320E and Celeron D 326 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1583 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Prescott (2001−2005) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) | September 2004 (20 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
FX-8320E and Celeron D 326 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.53 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.53 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 109 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 68 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 125 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 V | no data |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.25V-1.4V |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8320E and Celeron D 326 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 |
| Socket | AM3+ | PLGA478,PLGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 84 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Celeron D 326. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
FX-8320E and Celeron D 326 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320E and Celeron D 326 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 D 326. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320E and Celeron D 326.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 8 | 1 |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 84 Watt |
FX-8320E has 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron D 326, on the other hand, has 13.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between FX-8320E and Celeron D 326. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and Celeron D 326, 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.
