Ultra 9 285K vs FX-8320E
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 9 285K outperforms FX-8320E by a whopping 1270% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1613 | 53 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.70 | 69.52 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 3.11 | 32.38 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 24 October 2024 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $147 | $589 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ultra 9 285K has 9831% better value for money than FX-8320E.
Detailed specifications
FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 250 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3+ | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K.
| PCIe version | n/a | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.18 | 43.58 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 24 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 24 |
| Threads | 8 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
FX-8320E has 31.6% lower power consumption.
Ultra 9 285K, on the other hand, has a 1270.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Core Ultra 9 285K is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320E in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and Core Ultra 9 285K, 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.
