FX-8320 vs Xeon E5-2670
Aggregated performance score
Xeon E5-2670 outperforms FX-8320 by an impressive 64% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1041 | 1435 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.77 | 1.42 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $145 | no data |
| Current price | $58 (0.4x MSRP) | $110 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
FX-8320 has 84% better value for money than Xeon E5-2670.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 8192 KB |
| L3 cache | 20480 KB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 80 °C | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
| P0 Vcore voltage | no data | Min: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 384 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | n/a |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
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.
Xeon E5-2670 outperforms FX-8320 by 64% 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%
Xeon E5-2670 outperforms FX-8320 by 64% 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%
Xeon E5-2670 outperforms FX-8320 by 11% 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%
Xeon E5-2670 outperforms FX-8320 by 69% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.79 | 3.53 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 23 October 2012 |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 125 Watt |
The Xeon E5-2670 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2670 is a server/workstation processor while FX-8320 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2670 and FX-8320, 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.
