Xeon Platinum 8160M vs FX-4320

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-4320
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.99
Xeon Platinum 8160M
2017
24 cores / 48 threads, 150 Watt
33.59
+1588%

Xeon Platinum 8160M outperforms FX-4320 by a whopping 1588% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1925116
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data6.19
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon Platinum
Power efficiency1.9721.10
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Skylake (server) (2017−2019)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)25 April 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$7,704

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M 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)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads448
Base clock speed4 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.7 GHz
Multiplierno data21
L1 cache192 KB1.5 MB
L2 cache4096 KB24 MB
L3 cache4096 KB33 MB
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature71 °C85 °C
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M 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 configuration18 (Multiprocessor)
SocketAM3+FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt150 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-

Security technologies

FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR4-2666
Maximum memory sizeno data1.5 TB
Max memory channelsno data6
Maximum memory bandwidthno data128.001 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M.

PCIe versionNot Listed3.0
PCI Express lanesno data48

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 1.99
Xeon Platinum 8160M 33.59
+1588%

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
Xeon Platinum 8160M 53158
+1588%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.99 33.59
Recency 23 October 2012 25 April 2017
Physical cores 4 24
Threads 4 48
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 150 Watt

FX-4320 has 57.9% lower power consumption.

Xeon Platinum 8160M, on the other hand, has a 1587.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon Platinum 8160M is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-4320 in performance tests.

Note that FX-4320 is a desktop processor while Xeon Platinum 8160M is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4320 and Xeon Platinum 8160M, 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
Intel Xeon Platinum 8160M
Xeon Platinum 8160M

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
3.3 20 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8160M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-4320 or Xeon Platinum 8160M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.