Xeon W-3245 vs FX-8320E
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W-3245 outperforms FX-8320E by a whopping 527% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1907 | 419 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.82 | 3.87 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon W |
| Power efficiency | 1.26 | 3.65 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $147 | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W-3245 has 372% better value for money than FX-8320E.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
FX-8320E and Xeon W-3245 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 32 |
| L1 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 22 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 77 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 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 W-3245 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Xeon W-3245. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
FX-8320E and Xeon W-3245 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 W-3245 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 W-3245. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 140.8 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 W-3245.
| PCIe version | n/a | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 64 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-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 | 2.83 | 17.74 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 3 June 2019 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 16 |
| Threads | 8 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 205 Watt |
FX-8320E has 115.8% lower power consumption.
Xeon W-3245, on the other hand, has a 526.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Intel Xeon W-3245 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD FX-8320E in performance tests.
Note that FX-8320E is a desktop processor while Xeon W-3245 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
