Ryzen 5 3500X vs FX-8320E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8320E
2014
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
3.12
Ryzen 5 3500X
2019
6 cores / 6 threads, 65 Watt
8.29
+166%

Ryzen 5 3500X outperforms FX-8320E by a whopping 166% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320E and Ryzen 5 3500X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1627918
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.83no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD Ryzen 5
Power efficiency3.1112.06
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Matisse (2019−2020)
Release date2 September 2014 (10 years ago)24 September 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$147no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8320E and Ryzen 5 3500X 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)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads86
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz4.1 GHz
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data32 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm7 nm, 12 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8320E and Ryzen 5 3500X 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM3+AM4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Ryzen 5 3500X. 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-8320E and Ryzen 5 3500X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320E and Ryzen 5 3500X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data128 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data51.196 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320E and Ryzen 5 3500X.

PCIe versionn/ano data

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-8320E 3.12
Ryzen 5 3500X 8.29
+166%

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-8320E 4960
Ryzen 5 3500X 13163
+165%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

FX-8320E 438
Ryzen 5 3500X 1579
+261%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

FX-8320E 1685
Ryzen 5 3500X 5927
+252%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.12 8.29
Recency 2 September 2014 24 September 2019
Physical cores 8 6
Threads 8 6
Chip lithography 32 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

FX-8320E has 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.

Ryzen 5 3500X, on the other hand, has a 165.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 357.1% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 3500X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320E in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and Ryzen 5 3500X, 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-8320E
FX-8320E
AMD Ryzen 5 3500X
Ryzen 5 3500X

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.


4.3 1117 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1826 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 3500X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8320E or Ryzen 5 3500X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.