EPYC 9654 vs FX-8320E

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

FX-8320E
2014
8 cores / 8 threads
3.18
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads
78.29
+2362%

EPYC 9654 outperforms FX-8320E by 2362% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing FX-8320E and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking14964
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.9010.14
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Genoa
Release date2 September 2014 (9 years ago)10 November 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$11,805
Current price$140 $4544 (0.4x MSRP)

Value for money

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9654 has 1027% better value for money than FX-8320E.

Technical specs

FX-8320E and EPYC 9654 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)96
Threads8192
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size315 mm212x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplierYesNo
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8320E and EPYC 9654 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 configuration12
SocketAM3+SP5
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+no data
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320E and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320E and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320E and EPYC 9654.

PCIe versionn/a5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

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-8320E 3.18
EPYC 9654 78.29
+2362%

EPYC 9654 outperforms FX-8320E by 2362% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

FX-8320E 4960
EPYC 9654 122091
+2362%

EPYC 9654 outperforms FX-8320E by 2362% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

FX-8320E 444
EPYC 9654 1829
+312%

EPYC 9654 outperforms FX-8320E by 312% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

FX-8320E 1683
EPYC 9654 18566
+1003%

EPYC 9654 outperforms FX-8320E by 1003% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 3.18 78.29
Recency 2 September 2014 10 November 2022
Physical cores 8 96
Threads 8 192
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 360 Watt

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320E in performance tests.

Be aware that FX-8320E is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and EPYC 9654, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD FX-8320E
FX-8320E
AMD EPYC 9654
EPYC 9654

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.

User Ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 1010 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 978 votes

Rate EPYC 9654 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8320E or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.