FX-4320 vs Xeon E5-2640 v4

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2640 v4
2016
10 cores / 20 threads, 90 Watt
7.86
+297%
FX-4320
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.98

Xeon E5-2640 v4 outperforms FX-4320 by a whopping 297% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9451927
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.66no data
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon E5no data
Power efficiency8.261.97
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$939no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads204
Base clock speed2.4 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.4 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier24no data
L1 cacheno data192 KB
L2 cache2.5 MB4096 KB
L3 cache25 MB4096 KB
Chip lithography14 nm32 nm
Die size246.24 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperature76 °C71 °C
Number of transistors3200 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA2011AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)90 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133DDR3-1866
Maximum memory size1.5 TBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth68.3 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320.

PCIe version3.0Not Listed
PCI Express lanes40no 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.

Xeon E5-2640 v4 7.86
+297%
FX-4320 1.98

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.

Xeon E5-2640 v4 12493
+297%
FX-4320 3150

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.86 1.98
Recency 20 June 2016 23 October 2012
Physical cores 10 4
Threads 20 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 90 Watt 95 Watt

Xeon E5-2640 v4 has a 297% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 150% more physical cores and 400% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 5.6% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5-2640 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-4320 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2640 v4 is a server/workstation processor while FX-4320 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2640 v4 and FX-4320, 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.


Intel Xeon E5-2640 v4
Xeon E5-2640 v4
AMD FX-4320
FX-4320

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.


4.2 944 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2640 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 135 votes

Rate FX-4320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2640 v4 or FX-4320, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.