Ultra 9 285 vs FX-8320E
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1628 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.83 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 3.11 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) | January 2025 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $147 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 5.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285 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+ | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285.
| PCIe version | n/a | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 8 | 24 |
| Threads | 8 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
FX-8320E has 31.6% lower power consumption.
Ultra 9 285, on the other hand, has 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285, 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.
