EPYC 9534 vs FX-8320

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8320
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.43
EPYC 9534
2022
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
59.10
+1623%

EPYC 9534 outperforms FX-8320 by a whopping 1623% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320 and EPYC 9534 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking154818
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.72
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency2.6019.98
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$8,803

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8320 and EPYC 9534 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads8128
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.45 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.7 GHz
Multiplierno data24.5
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size315 mm28x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million52,560 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8320 and EPYC 9534 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+SP5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 9534. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 9534 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 9534. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320 and EPYC 9534.

PCIe versionn/a5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

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-8320 3.43
EPYC 9534 59.10
+1623%

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-8320 5443
EPYC 9534 93884
+1625%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.43 59.10
Recency 23 October 2012 10 November 2022
Physical cores 8 64
Threads 8 128
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 280 Watt

FX-8320 has 124% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9534, on the other hand, has a 1623% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9534 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8320 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9534 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320 and EPYC 9534, 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-8320
FX-8320
AMD EPYC 9534
EPYC 9534

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.


4.2 1389 votes

Rate FX-8320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9534 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8320 or EPYC 9534, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.