Xeon E5-2609 vs FX-8320E
Aggregate performance score
FX-8320E outperforms Xeon E5-2609 by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320E and Xeon E5-2609 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1610 | 2004 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.71 | 0.73 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 3.11 | 2.13 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $147 | $143 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E5-2609 has 3% better value for money than FX-8320E.
Detailed specifications
FX-8320E and Xeon E5-2609 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 | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 6.4 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 10240 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 294 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,270 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 E5-2609 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 | 2 |
| Socket | AM3+ | FCLGA2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Xeon E5-2609. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
Security technologies
FX-8320E and Xeon E5-2609 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 Xeon E5-2609 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 E5-2609. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 384 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 34.1 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 E5-2609.
| PCIe version | n/a | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 40 |
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 | 3.24 | 1.87 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 6 March 2012 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 80 Watt |
FX-8320E has a 73.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Xeon E5-2609, on the other hand, has 18.8% lower power consumption.
The FX-8320E is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2609 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8320E is a desktop processor while Xeon E5-2609 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and Xeon E5-2609, 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.
