EPYC Embedded 8434P vs FX-8320E
Primary details
Comparing FX-8320E and EPYC Embedded 8434P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1615 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.79 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 3.11 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $147 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-8320E and EPYC Embedded 8434P 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) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 4x 73 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 75 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 35,500 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 EPYC Embedded 8434P 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+ | SP6 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and EPYC Embedded 8434P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320E and EPYC Embedded 8434P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320E and EPYC Embedded 8434P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320E and EPYC Embedded 8434P.
| PCIe version | n/a | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 96 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 1 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 48 |
| Threads | 8 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 200 Watt |
FX-8320E has 110.5% lower power consumption.
EPYC Embedded 8434P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between FX-8320E and EPYC Embedded 8434P. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that FX-8320E is a desktop processor while EPYC Embedded 8434P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and EPYC Embedded 8434P, 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.
