Xeon E3-1220 vs FX-8320E
Aggregate performance score
FX-8320E outperforms Xeon E3-1220 by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320E and Xeon E3-1220 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1615 | 1763 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.79 | 0.58 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 3.11 | 2.86 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 3 April 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $147 | $395 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
FX-8320E has 36% better value for money than Xeon E3-1220.
Detailed specifications
FX-8320E and Xeon E3-1220 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 216 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 69 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,160 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 Xeon E3-1220 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+ | LGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Xeon E3-1220. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| FDI | no data | - |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
FX-8320E and Xeon E3-1220 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320E and Xeon E3-1220 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320E and Xeon E3-1220. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
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 Xeon E3-1220.
| PCIe version | n/a | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.12 | 2.42 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 3 April 2011 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 80 Watt |
FX-8320E has a 28.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Xeon E3-1220, on the other hand, has 18.8% lower power consumption.
The FX-8320E is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E3-1220 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8320E is a desktop processor while Xeon E3-1220 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and Xeon E3-1220, 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.
