Xeon X5698 vs FX-4320

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-4320
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.98
Xeon X5698
2011
2 cores / 4 threads, 130 Watt
2.17
+9.6%

Xeon X5698 outperforms FX-4320 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-4320 and Xeon X5698 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19391857
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.971.58
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)14 February 2011 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-4320 and Xeon X5698 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads44
Base clock speed4 GHz4.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz4.4 GHz
L1 cache192 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache4096 KB256 KB (per core)
L3 cache4096 KB12288 KB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size315 mm2239 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million1,170 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on FX-4320 and Xeon X5698 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 configuration12
SocketAM3+1366
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt130 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4320 and Xeon X5698. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+

Security technologies

FX-4320 and Xeon X5698 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4320 and Xeon X5698 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4320 and Xeon X5698. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1866DDR3

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 X5698.

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
Xeon X5698 2.17
+9.6%

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 X5698 3447
+9.4%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.98 2.17
Recency 23 October 2012 14 February 2011
Physical cores 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 130 Watt

FX-4320 has an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores, and 36.8% lower power consumption.

Xeon X5698, on the other hand, has a 9.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FX-4320 and Xeon X5698.

Note that FX-4320 is a desktop processor while Xeon X5698 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4320 and Xeon X5698, 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 X5698
Xeon X5698

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.


3.5 138 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 7 votes

Rate Xeon X5698 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 X5698, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.