AMD FX-8320E AM3+ Processor Performance Review


<< PREVIOUS            NEXT >>

PCMark 8 Tests

Futuremark’s PCMark 8 Professional is predicated on “real-world relevance”. While the professional version offers users the freedom to construct any test scenario they want, a series of pre-configured test setups is included. AMD suggested that the Home test would show their product to advantage, so it’s the one I ran.

The Home test runs scripts for web browsing, writing, photo editing, video chat, and “casual gaming”. Each test is run three times and the results averaged. Although the tests don’t seem particularly heinous, this single benchmark is the reason my manual overclock limit on the FX-8320E CPU was 4.5gHz: because while the CPU would pass every other benchmark at 4.6gHz, it would always crash or freeze during the PCMark 8 Home test.

So there’s that.

After running all the tests, PCMark 8 generates a “score” representing the performance across all of the tests. However, rather than simply reporting this score, I’m showing all the test results, because some of them are interesting.

PCMark 8 Home Conventional 2

In this first set of tests, all the times are reported in seconds (the Writing scores have been divided by 10 to scale to this graph, so for “0.47” read “4.7”), with lower scores denoting better performance. The Intel CPU’s only win is in the Writing test; and the manually overclocked FX-8320E beats the top-tier FX-9590 in every single testPCMark 8 Home Conventional 1

Looking at the next set of scores is a little confusing: for Video Chat #2, lower scores are better, while higher scores are better for the other three results. The Core i3-4360 wins the Casual Gaming score by a huge margin, and this is probably what gives it the overall win as measured by the Combined Score. Still, note that the Intel CPU’s combined score is less than 9% better than the stock-clocked FX-8320E score…and that’s not much.

Let’s look at some more real-world results in the SPEC APC test in the next section.


<< PREVIOUS            NEXT >>


Skip to comment form

  1. Roland

    Gaming performance is changing… I picked up a G3258, Great little CPU with performance greater than say the i5 750(ish) overall. So nothing to sneeze at and if you overclock can easily surpass stock i5s. Problem?

    Well, a few of the newest games can’t be run on it (think Dragon Age Inquisition) as they require 4 cores. So what are we left with? On the cheaper side this or say the 860K. Suddenly those cheaper AMD Quads are looking a whole helluva lot more attractive and as you said your not likely to see to much difference. Fast is still fast just not as fast as some. I’ve always maintained though that for “most” your not going to notice much of a difference is most tasks provided other areas are relatively equal.

    1. David Ramsey

      I’ve never heard of a game that requires four cores; generally, a program just spawns threads and lets the OS and CPU sort out which resources will handle them. Windows has dozens of threads running when you’ve just booted and are sitting there (actually, I just checked, and Task Manager says I have 65 processes going in this case). Most of these threads are low priority, and it could certainly be the case that some modern games would run better with four cores, but they should run, if poorly, with dual cores or even a single core.

      So, as you point out, AMD’s lower cost multi-core chips may well be better for some of these games than a “faster” Intel CPU.

      1. Roland

        Hi David, So sorry for the late reply. I never heard of it either till recently.. Kind of floored me actually since I’ve built a few budget machines for others that will certainly complain if they land up buying that game (one other to.. can’t remember it’s name) Basically what happens is both cores go to 100% and just sit there not allowing you to play.

  2. Athlonite

    I would have been more impressed if AMD had die shrunk this CPU to 22nm instead of just reducing the clock speed thus the TDP from 125 to 95 well big whoop AMD as soon as you clock it the same as an FX8320 (3500MHz) it’s using the same 125W

    1. David Ramsey

      Well, it’s up to GlobalFoundries to get their process size down. It’s a non-trivial thing, you know, which is probably why I don’t know of any company other than Intel that’s managed it.

      I agree the “E” thing seems kinda silly.

  3. Meh

    It took 8 cores to do it but they finally beat an i5 whether that’s good or bad I don’t really know, but hey still cheaper than an Intel processor I’m not complaining I bought one as well.

  4. CrabbyR

    Hi, I picked up an interesting but odd 8320E , purchased it for 132 CAD , came sealed in an amd box with fan which is a pretty good price, Everywhere I look on websites
    the base clock is listed as 3.2 ghz , the unit I have is a base clock of 3.5 , I even looked at the chip again to make sure that the E was present on the processor , which it was ,cpu z reports it as 8320 E, So at stock settings it`s 3.5 and 4.0 turbo , I have a ASrock
    970 extreme 3 board so out of curiousity I set the multiplier down to 3.2 and , it didn`t want to go there, still reported 3.5,
    Guess I could force it down , so this begs the question , Is it a 8320 misbranded and 125watts or a flukey 8320e thats running 95 watts at 3.5 . I haven`t seen anything on the web from anyone else about this, Any thoughs or info?

    1. David Ramsey

      That is an excellent question. My first suggestion would be to make sure you’re running the latest BIOS for your ASRock motherboard– the 8320E came out after most 970 motherboards. So update your BIOS if needed and see if that fixes things.

  5. carolinereza.tumblr.com

    Moreover, upgrading the memory, hard drive or the most
    other components of your desktop Pc requires minimal understanding of the way in which the computer works.
    8 GB) 1600 MHz – Cost: $124. Even though the Steam sales are over,
    you can still get great games for a outrageous price.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>