Ryzen 7 7840HS vs FX-8320E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8320E
2014
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
3.12
Ryzen 7 7840HS
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
18.20
+483%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms FX-8320E by a whopping 483% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8320E and Ryzen 7 7840HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1615327
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.69no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Power efficiency3.1149.21
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023)
Release date2 September 2014 (10 years ago)January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$147no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8320E and Ryzen 7 7840HS 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)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads816
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz5.1 GHz
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm4 nm
Die size315 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million25,000 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 7 7840HS 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
SocketAM3+FP8
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8320E and Ryzen 7 7840HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataRyzen AI, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8320E and Ryzen 7 7840HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8320E and Ryzen 7 7840HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8320E and Ryzen 7 7840HS.

PCIe versionn/a4.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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 7 7840HS 18.20
+483%

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 7 7840HS 28902
+483%

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 7 7840HS 2366
+440%

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 7 7840HS 11004
+553%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.12 18.20
Threads 8 16
Chip lithography 32 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 7 7840HS has a 483.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 7840HS is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8320E in performance tests.

Note that FX-8320E is a desktop processor while Ryzen 7 7840HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8320E and Ryzen 7 7840HS, 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 7 7840HS
Ryzen 7 7840HS

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 1108 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 1633 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 7840HS 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 7 7840HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.