A8-6500 vs FX-4320

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-4320
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.98
+11.2%
A8-6500
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.78

FX-4320 outperforms A8-6500 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-4320 and A8-6500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19272015
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.972.59
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Richland (2013−2014)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)1 June 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-4320 and A8-6500 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed4 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz4.1 GHz
L1 cache192 KB192 KB
L2 cache4096 KB4096 KB
L3 cache4096 KB0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size315 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °C71 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data71 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on FX-4320 and A8-6500 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 configuration11
SocketAM3+FM2
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and A8-6500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+FMA4
AVX+AVX
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4320 and A8-6500 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and A8-6500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR3-1866
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon HD 8570D
Number of pipelinesno data256
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-4320 and A8-6500 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-4320 and A8-6500 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 11

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4320 and A8-6500.

PCIe versionNot Listed2.0

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-4320 1.98
+11.2%
A8-6500 1.78

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.

FX-4320 3150
+11.7%
A8-6500 2820

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.98 1.78
Recency 23 October 2012 1 June 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

FX-4320 has a 11.2% higher aggregate performance score.

A8-6500, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The FX-4320 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-6500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4320 and A8-6500, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

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


AMD FX-4320
FX-4320
AMD A8-6500
A8-6500

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.

Community ratings

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


3.5 135 votes

Rate FX-4320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 104 votes

Rate A8-6500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-4320 or A8-6500, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.