Amd fx 8320e review: AMD FX-8320E CPU Review: The Other 95W Vishera

AMD FX-8320E review | TechRadar

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.

A budget octo-core CPU, but is it cheap enough?

By Dave James

published 27 February 2015

A budget octo-core CPU, but is it cheap enough?

TechRadar Verdict

The cheapest eight-threaded CPU around, but there are better options if you don’t need that sort of multi-threaded capability.

TODAY’S BEST DEALS

Cons

—
Old, old tech
—
still more power-hungry than Intel
—
no native USB 3.0 or PCIe support

Why you can trust TechRadar
Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

When AMD tells us it’s sending over a new FX-series CPU, we can’t help the sudden rush of excitement. It’s an automatic response, born of a time when a new AMD CPU had the potential to offer something genuinely competitive.

But those days seem long gone. All we get now are half-hearted revisions of increasingly elderly chips.

The FX-8320E is the perfect example of that. AMD released this chip late last year, along with the FX-8370E as a pair of lower-powered octo-core CPUs for the more power-conscious consumer.

These two chips use AMD’s Bulldozer processor tech and squeeze into a 95W TDP. They’re able to do this by utilising a lower base clock, but retaining the same Turbo clock as their non-E brethren.

To that end, this FX-8320E is running at 3.2GHz as standard, with the ability to hit 4GHz as needed. The standard FX-8320’s clockspeed sits some 300MHz higher at 3.5GHz.

So far, so good. For 30W less power you only sacrifice 300MHz of CPU horsepower, which seems like a pretty good trade-off.

But the fact these CPUs are still running with an outdated version of the Bulldozer architecture makes them seem more like an afterthought than a proper processor release. In the Kaveri APU, launched a year ago, AMD used the latest revision of Bulldozer, codenamed Steamroller. Its next APU, Carrizo, will use the final Bulldozer revision which is codenamed Excavator.

This 95W processor then, using the old Piledriver architecture, is two generations behind AMD’s top x86 CPU cores.

And it doesn’t look like it has any interest at all in shifting the FX range over to the Excavator design, despite the IPC (instructions per clock) boosts that both the Steamroller and Excavator tech have over Piledriver.

The cost of saving

What’s the game with the FX-8320E then?

You’d assume that with the focus on hitting a lower TDP, this chip would be looking at small form factor machines, but that 95W TDP is still higher than the 84W Haswell Core i5 processors, even the K-series versions.

But then there’s the price. At just over £100, this is the cheapest eight-core CPU around – even if you baulk at referring to its quad-module design as a full octo-core setup it still sits as the cheapest, eight-threaded processor you can buy.

In this context, suddenly the FX-8320E looks like a more intriguing purchase.

That’s especially true if you’re sitting on a lower core-count AM3+ chip and feel the need for an upgrade. In performance terms – in both straight CPU and gaming tests – the FX-8320E is evidently behind both the FX-8350 and Intel Core i5-4570, but it’s a good £30-50 cheaper than those more powerful chips.

And because it’s an AMD chip, without the needless limitations imposed on it by overzealous marketing execs (looking at you, Mr Intel K-series), you can get happy with the overclocking. Well, should your chosen chip and board be capable of it anyways.

Our sample wasn’t very happy running anything above 4GHz. We got a little more out of it with some voltage tweaks, but not enough to keep it stable on the MSI 970 Gaming motherboard we were testing it in.

Still, at that speed on all cores it runs mighty close to a stock-clocked, full-fat AMD FX-8350.

For the AMD upgrader then, it’s not a bad budget option. If you’re looking to build an all-new machine though we’d still struggle to recommend an AMD setup.

Even though you’re getting eight threads of processing power, a resolutely quad-core, un-overclockable Core i5-4570 will still deliver better CPU performance, and in a smaller power envelope too.

The Intel platform is also going to be more up to date and not much more expensive either. While AMD’s AM3+ chipsets were queuing up for their pensions, Intel’s motherboard chipsets were busy fitting themselves out with native USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 support…

And then there’s gaming.

If you’re a PC gamer, your AMD CPU is stealing frames from your graphics card. The difference between the Intel Core i5-4570 and this FX chip is nearly 20fps on average at 1080p settings with the same GPU. And that’s with a 50W peak platform power saving over the AMD offering too.

Yes, it’s initially a cheaper option, but you’re paying a different price going the AMD route.

We liked

It’s all about the pricing of this AMD CPU. At under £100 it’s the cheapest eight-threaded CPU you can buy. If you’re into your multi-threaded productivity applications then the concurrent performance of the FX chip’s quad-module design will deliver a lot of processing power for the money.

And you can overclock too. Running at 4GHz you’re getting almost the same level of performance as the pricier FX-8350.

We disliked

AMD’s processor platform is looking seriously geriatric these days. Without native support for either USB 3.0 or PCIe 3.0 it has to rely on the board manufacturers to bring in third-party silicon to deal with such things. And that introduces more performance barriers.

Gaming is also a problem for the FX-8320e — you could potentially lose out on a lot of the performance potential of your graphics card opting for an eight-thread FX chip over a quad-core Intel.

Verdict

As a budget eight-threaded option the FX-8320e is a decent choice of chip for the productivity folk, but if you’re looking to build a budget gaming rig you will be losing out on some of the performance potential of your GPU.

——————————

AMD FX-8320e: Price Comparison

No price information

Check Amazon

TechRadar is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site .

The Right Answer For The Gamer On A Budget? – Techgage

I’m a budget-oriented gamer. So much so, in fact, that once I build a PC that suits my needs for the games I play, I tend to “sit on it” for years. I completed my last build way back in 2010, and even then I used parts that I’d recycled from previous builds and parts I picked up used. It’s not that I’m overly frugal, I just have a limited budget at my disposal so I tend to prioritize my hobbies.

Having said that, I’ve been running AMD CPUs for quite some time. New, they cost less than the competition, and used, they scale even better. AMD’s CPUs tend to be modest in raw horsepower, but as you can often pick up a used quad-core for around the same price as a new dual-core Pentium, the appeal is still strong. This is why when I finally decided to upgrade my aging graphics subsystem I also felt the need to make the jump to current gen tech in regards to RAM and other core components.

Enter my current system:

	Matt’s New AMD Build
Processors	AMD FX-8320E ‘8-Core’ (3.20GHz)
Motherboard	ASUS M5A99FX Pro R2.0
Memory	G.SKILL Ripjaws F3-14900CL8D-8GBXM – DDR3-1866 CL8
Graphics	2x EVGA GTX 760 SC 2GB
Audio	Onboard
Storage	AMD Radeon R7 240GB SSD Hitachi Deskstar 1TB HDD ASUS SATA DVD/RW ODD
Power Supply	be quiet! Straight Power 10 800W
Chassis	Cooler Master HAF XB EVO
Cooling	DIY Water Cooling

I should note that when I say “budget”, despite the gloriously decadent-sounding load-out consisting of water cooling gear, SLI’d GTX 760s and a fairly high-end PSU unit, it really is budget to the core. The only new parts were the case, the motherboard, the RAM (which incidentally was a Christmas gift), the SSD, one GPU block, the tubing, fans and some fittings. The rest of the parts were either purchased used or carried over from my previous system. All told, I have about $600-$700 invested in parts.

I was initially intending to go big. I bought my motherboard with one purpose in mind: get the cheapest one I could find that supports an FX-9590. My life seldom goes according to plan, though; despite the fact that I’d retired from PC enthusiast reviewing, an opportunity arose that I couldn’t turn down, a chance to check out one of AMD’s latest offerings, the budget-friendly FX-8320E. We’re talking 3.2GHz of quasi eight-core goodness – in a sub-100W package, no less.

AMD’s FX Series Black Edition

When I say “quasi eight core goodness”, I’m not downplaying the fact that there are eight cores; the fact that they’re tied together at the FPU, branch predictor unit, and L2 cache renders them more of a hardware-level SMT system rather than eight independent cores. This isn’t exactly a bad thing, but it’s also less-than-ideal as I discovered when I compared the effect it has on instructions-per-clock when compared to my aging X4 955 Black Edition.

The first discrepancy I encountered was a simple issue with Prime95. Running the tool as a stress test I noted that per core on the 8320E, it took a full four minutes to complete one test per core at the overclock I’d managed to find that suited my criteria of a compromise between power per watt, meaning I was able to keep the Vcore within .2V of the stock voltage. I was able to hit 4.6GHz at 1.416V with 100% stability. My X4 955 BE was running at 3.6GHz at 1.48V, so the .064 lower core voltage with a full 1GHz increase in speed was pretty nice.

That all said, here’s where things get a bit odd… back to Prime95. On the 955 (I’m going to refer to it as such from this point onward since we’ve established the full nomenclature earlier), I was able to complete one full test per core in exactly one minute. This breaks down to 16 tests total per four minutes to the 8 completed in the same time frame by the 8320E despite the 1GHz deficit.

I relayed that finding to Rob, and since I had most of the gear to run a secondary testing rig, he reached out to the good folks at HyperX to see if they could help out with the missing piece of that puzzle and send out a RAM kit so we could test both CPUs back-to-back.

Note that the 8320E is running a 28K length test versus a 20K on the 955.

That difference is due to the arbitrary nature of Prime95 setting minimum and maximum lengths in the small FFT automatic mode. I later manually set the length to 20K on the 8320E so the playing field was level and still ended up seeing the same times.

Intrigued by this, I decided to run a CPU-dependent version of Unigine Heaven. To remove the GPU as a factor I simply set the resolution to 640×480, lowered all of the quality settings to minimum, and let it rock.

The average FPS was 185. 1 with a minimum of 30.3 and a maximum of 269.5.

At the same settings, the 955 managed an average of 148.0 with a minimum of 10.5 and a maximum of 224.8.

Considering the thread count advantage and the higher overall core speed I’m rather disappointed that the 8320E didn’t come away with a greater difference. Granted, on the minimum FPS we see about a 190% improvement over the 955 (or the difference of a slideshow versus full playability) but at the top-end it’s down to 22 or 23 percent and hovering around 25% on the average.

Mind you, I’ve gamed with both CPUs in the same rig and never was I running into a situation where I got to an unplayable frame rate in the games I tested. I have run into some choppy areas but I lay that at the feet of the settings I was using with my GPUs. I made the mistake of going with NVIDIA’s recommended settings which proved to be a tad gung-ho. Setting them back to a more reasonable level (Borderlands 2 and The Pre-Sequel) of high across the board on visuals with PhysX minimized brought my experience up to a silky-smooth level on either CPU.

I guess that’s the crux, isn’t it… what games you’re planning to play and how many cores they can leverage. Obviously, the Unreal Engine 3 isn’t the most demanding game engine out there. It’s over a decade old and doesn’t really leverage multiple cores to any real advantage. The IPC of the current generation of FX processors isn’t the highest, to put it kindly.

In Cinebench R15 the 8320E scores 76 on one core at 3.2GHz. I can hear you saying “but that’s okay, the turbo speed is 4.0GHz; surely that’s got to be a big improvement!” which is what you’d expect. Sadly, though, it’s not. At 4.1GHz the score rises 19 points to a meager 95. The 955 at 3.6GHz scores 94, one point lower despite a full 500MHz deficit. The 8320E breaks 100 per core at 4.6Ghz with a score of 109. When you move on to the full eight cores at 4.6GHz it begins to shape up and stretch its legs, delivering a decent score of 727. In fact, the multi-core performance is a very decent 6.79 which is the overall score of 727/109, so the CPU leverages nearly 6. 8 times a single core when running all eight threads. Comparing that to the 4770K at 4.4GHz which scores 822 for eight threads and 165 per single “core” or thread, it has a ratio of just 4.98. The FX really does have an effective multi-core multithreading mechanic.

The trouble is, at present, throwing threads at games shows diminishing returns in general. As I said earlier, it all depends on the games you plan to play and how well they leverage more than 2-4 cores.

I hate to be a negative voice in regards to AMD, as I’ve been a fan for over a decade. Since I built my first PC back on 2001, I’ve built 2 for myself that have been Intel-based. In fact, I’ve been running a Phenom II X4 based system for the last 4 or 5 years and before that it was an Athlon 2 dual-core. That said, I can’t justify going with a new AMD build based on the AM3+ platform if you’re currently running an Athlon X4 or Phenom II X4-based system. I can see buying a new board to move up to USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps, but if you’re running an AM3-based chip, I’d recommend just sticking with it. Instead, spend the money you’d put towards an octo-core CPU towards a GPU upgrade since that’s going to net you the biggest bang-for-your-buck return.

If, on the other hand, you’re coming from an AM2-based system or a dual-core AM3 and you’ve got limited funds, you’ve got two choices: go with either an AM3+ 6+ core CPU (at the time of this writing you can find the FX-8320E for $120-$149 USD), and get the cheapest 970 or 990FX-based board you can get your hands on; or go with an H97 based board and an Intel Core i3.

Whoa, whoa… don’t get your torches and pitchforks quite yet!

Looking on Newegg, the cheapest H97 full ATX board is $69. It’s $10 more than the cheapest 970-based full ATX AM3+ board. Ten bucks more… you can pick up an i3-4330 for $134 which is $10 less than a similarly clocked FX-8320 (no e) and $15 less than the 8320E. Granted, both of the AMD’s are “8-Core” processors while the i3 is a dual-core with HT. The thing is, the i3 still has superior IPC performance since it’s based on the same core as the bigger brother i5s and i7s. Not only that, the H97 board will support Broadwell when it comes out; with the AM3+ board, you’re at the end of the proverbial road.

Inexpensive Intel motherboards make it even harder to want to go the AMD route

When AMD’s Zen microarchitecture debuts it’s going to be launching with a new socket and chipset, leaving current users sitting on a dead-end. Not to mention the fact that even among what’s currently available, you’re going to top out at the FX-8350 or FX-8370 unless you shell out for a $130ish+ board that supports the FX-9XXX series chips. The bottom-rung H97 board supports every socket 1150 chip out there, from i3s to Xeons to the i7-4790k. Get some cash and want to upgrade to a CPU the FX-9XXX series can’t touch? Yep, you can do that.

As much as I hate to write this, as an enthusiast, I can’t really recommend AMD’s CPUs right now. Not if you’re starting from square one. Like I said earlier, if you’ve got a compatible chip (AM3) and want to move to USB 3. 0 and SATA 6Gbps, by all means, the boards are great. The chipset is mature and I’ve even seen where one of the board manufacturers is coming out with a board with USB 3.1. If you’re sporting an AM2+ or earlier system, just take the plunge into an Intel setup. They’re really not all that much more money if you’re frugal with your choices, and they don’t represent a dead-end in the future if you go with a 9X series chipset.

That said, I’m really at a loss for words. I’m a little sad, very disappointed, and unhappy in feeling like I’ve failed one of my heroes. So, I’m going to retire and lick my wounds.

Support our efforts! With ad revenue at an all-time low for written websites, we’re relying more than ever on reader support to help us continue putting so much effort into this type of content. You can support us by becoming a Patron, or by using our Amazon shopping affiliate links listed through our articles. Thanks for your support!

Review and test of the AMD FX-8320E Vishera — i2HARD processor

Ruslan

February 9, 2015

The AM3+ platform for high-performance AMD processors, despite its relative longevity, is not going to go into oblivion yet. In the fall of 2014, AMD again updated …

The AM3+ platform for high-performance processors AMD , despite its relative longevity, is not going to go into oblivion yet. In the fall of 2014, AMD again updated its line of processors for socket AM3 +, releasing three new processors FX-8370, FX-8370E and FX-8320E .

All released processors, in addition to good technical characteristics and high power consumption, were also endowed with attractive price tags that could attract the attention of thrifty buyers. Especially attractive among them, in terms of price and performance, looks like the youngest 8-core processor FX-8320E. Sold for just $146.99, this processor runs at 4 GHz using TurboCore technology and has a relatively modest TDP of 95 W. Let’s take a closer look at the FX-8320E processor, which was a guest of our editors.

Specifications

Socket — AM3+;
Core — Vishera;
Number of cores — 8;
Process technology — 32 nm;
Clock speed — 3200 MHz / 4000 MHz in Turbo Core On mode;
System bus — HT;
Built-in memory controller — yes;
L1 cache size — 48 KB;
L2 cache size — 8192 KB;
L3 cache size — 8192 KB;
Instructions — MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4;
AMD64/EM64T support — yes;
NX Bit support — yes;
Support for Virtualization Technology — yes;
Typical heat dissipation — 95 W.

AMD FX-8320E

The AMD FX-8320E processor itself is not a new development, but there are still some changes in it compared to the AMD FX-8320. The first thing that you can notice after examining the technical characteristics of the novelty is the reduced TDP of the processor to 95W, while the older AMD FX-8320 has a TDP of 125W. The decrease in this indicator became possible by lowering the base frequency of the processor, from 3500 to 3200 MHz. However, with AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology running, the AMD FX-8320E processor clocks under load to the same 4.0 GHz as the AMD FX-8320 processor.

The copy that came to us for testing was made in Malaysia on the 11th week of 2014. The AMD FX-8320E processor also belongs to the «Black Edition» series, so the multiplier in it is not locked up. And this, in turn, allows us to lay good hopes on the successful overclocking of the novelty.

Since the AMD FX-8320E processor has a TDP of 95W, any motherboard with an AM3+ socket will work. In some cases, you only need to update the BIOS of the motherboard.

To test the AMD FX-8320E processor, we used the MSI 970 Gaming motherboard, which we talked about earlier. This motherboard left behind the most pleasant impressions, so it is not surprising that we decided to use it now.

Bios of the MSI 970 Gaming motherboard version v22.2 recognized the new AMD FX-8320E processor without any problems and correctly set its operating frequency and power parameters.

The latest version of the CPU-Z program confidently recognizes the processor and displays information about it very accurately. With the default settings of the BIOS of the motherboard, the operating voltage of the processor during load was 1.224 V ..

Default, MSI 9 motherboard70 Gaming sets the RAM to 1333MHz despite the FX-8320E supporting 1866MHz memory. However, this does not negate the ability to set the frequency of RAM through the BIOS settings manually.

Test bench configuration

Motherboard	MSI 970 Gaming AM3+
Cooling system	Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E
RAM	Corsair VengeancePro DDR3-2133 8Gb*2
video card	MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming 4G
power unit	Thermaltake ToughPower XT 775W
Drives	HDD SATA-3 1Tb Seagate 7200 Barracuda (ST1000DM003) SSD SATA-3 120Gb Kingston HyperX 3K
Monitor	ASUS PB298Q 29″ (2560×1080)
Frame	open stand
Thermal interface	Gelid GC-Extreme
operating system	Windows 7 x64 SP1
Other software	CPU-Z ROG 1. 71.1, Prime95, Aida64, LinX 0.64

Overclocking, temperature and power consumption

The AMD FX-8320E processor is known to run at 3200 MHz, and with the help of AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology, its frequency increases to 4000 MHz under load. We also tested the AMD FX-8320E for overclocking, which the processor is very good at. The clock frequency of the AMD FX-8320E processor was increased by increasing its multiplier to 4600 MHz. RAM in all cases worked at a frequency of 1866 MHz with 9 timings-10-9-27-2T. Thus, for practical testing, we chose the following three modes:

1) Processor AMD FX-8320E — frequency 3200 MHz (voltage — 1.168 V), RAM 1866 MHz;

2) Processor AMD FX-8320E — frequency 4000 MHz (voltage — 1.272 V), RAM 1866 MHz;

3) Processor AMD FX-8320E — frequency 4600 MHz (voltage — 1.504 V), RAM 1866 MHz;

Based on the results of the Aida64 Cache&Memory benchmark, we can conclude that the processor frequency has almost no effect on the memory bandwidth. With an increase in the clock frequency of the AMD FX-8320E, only memory delays decreased.

As for the temperature indicators, the AMD FX-8320E processor does not heat up surprisingly much, including during overclocking. With one of the top Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E air coolers, the processor temperature did not exceed reasonable values.

Power consumption measurements were carried out in two stages: first with a 100% load on the processor only, and then with a 100% load on the processor and video card. The graphs show the total power consumption collected by the system along with the AMD FX-8320E. According to the results obtained, it can be seen that a sharp increase in power consumption is observed after overclocking the processor with an increase in the supply voltage. And if in the nominal mode of operation, even with activated AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology, you can get by with a 400-450 W power supply, then in the case of serious overclocking, the AMD FX-8320E processor already makes higher demands on the power supply unit.

Synthetic and gaming tests

Performance in synthetic benchmarks such as CineBench, SVPmark, FritzBenchmark and the WinRar archiver increases almost in proportion to the increase in processor frequency. This, in turn, allows us to say that overclocking the AMD FX-8320E processor is expedient and even useful, since the effect of overclocking is confirmed in practice.

As for graphical tests, overclocking of the AMD FX-8320E processor is beneficial, though not everywhere proportionally. So, for example, 3D Mark13, SniperElite V2 and Sleeping Dogs quite cheerfully responded to the increase in the processor clock frequency, while in the graphically overloaded test Ungine Heaven 4.0 there were practically no changes depending on the increase in the frequency of AMD FX-8320E.

Conclusion

More recently, it would have been hard to recommend AMD FX-8320E for purchase, but due to the harsh realities of Russian retail, this processor now looks like a truly anti-crisis solution. By opting for the AMD FX-8320E, the user gets, first of all, an inexpensive 8-core processor, the performance of which is enough for any home tasks, including the latest generation games. AMD FX-8320E, in addition to its low cost, also does not require an expensive motherboard, so this processor is worth paying attention to, first of all, to those who love and know how to count money, especially during a crisis. Low processor heat and good overclocking capabilities leave the ground for a further increase in performance without significant costs, and the overall power consumption of the system, even coupled with overclocking, will allow you to assemble a powerful computer based on AMD FX-8320E with a power supply unit up to 550-600W.

Pros:

reasonable cost;
reduced TDP to 95W;
low heat;
good overclocking potential;
low requirements for the motherboard;
acceptable performance.

Cons:

increased requirements for the power supply when the processor is seriously overclocked.

Evaluating all the pros and cons of the AMD FX-8320E processor, the editors award this device an award of i2HARD — silver.

AMD FX-8320E review and testing GECID.com. Page 1

::>Processors
>2014
> AMD FX-8320E

2014-11-20

Page 1
Page 2
One page

AMD has not pleased its fans with radically new solutions in the high-performance processor segment for a long time. And after its competitor introduced the Socket LGA1150 and Socket LGA2011-v3 platforms to the market, some began to write off the “reds” altogether.

However, AMD companies have predicted death and oblivion so many times that such pessimistic attitudes are already perceived as something ordinary. What many people forget is that a product doesn’t have to have the highest performance or be the most recent to stay relevant in the market. Competent pricing policy can often level the technological gap. This is what we can now observe in the processor market, when solutions from the AMD Vishera family, which is “ancient” by the standards of computer technology, are still very popular and are sold at full speed.

In addition, game developers rushed in just in time, who finally remembered that modern processors are not limited to 2 cores, and began to work towards optimizing their projects. We can already see the first fruits in games such as Battlefield 4, Far Cry 3, ArmA 3 and Assassin’s Creed 4. Apparently, the trend will only continue.

All this continues to stir up user interest in AMD processors, which in turn even prompted the manufacturer to launch three new solutions on the market at once: AMD FX-8370, AMD FX-8370E and AMD FX-8320E, based on the well-known AMD Piledriver microarchitecture . We propose to start acquaintance with them with the youngest model in this list — AMD FX-8320E .

It is not a completely new development. It can rather be called the successor of the AMD FX-8320 processor. To make sure of this, we present the specification of the novelty in the form of a comparative table:

Model		AMD FX-8320E	AMD FX-8320
Marking		FD832EWMW8KHK / FD832EWMHKBOX	FD8320FRW8KHK / FD8320FRHKBOX
Processor socket		Socket AM3+	Socket AM3+
Clock frequency, MHz	nominal	3200	3500
	Turbo	4000	4000
Multiplier	nominal	16	17. 5
	Turbo	20	20
Base frequency, MHz		200	200
L1 cache size, KB		4 x 64 (instruction memory) 8 x 16 (data memory)	4 x 64 (instruction memory) 8 x 16 (data memory)
L2 cache size, KB		4 x 2048	4 x 2048
L3 cache size, MB		8	8
Microarchitecture		AMD Piledriver	AMD Piledriver
Codename		AMD Vishera	AMD Vishera
Number of processor cores / threads		8 / 8	8 / 8
Instruction support		MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4. 1, SSE4.2, x86-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, XOP, FMA3, FMA4	MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, x86-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, XOP, FMA3, FMA4
Supply voltage, V		—	—
Maximum design power (TDP), W		95	125
Maximum operating temperature, °C		—	—
Technical process, nm		32	32
Technology support		AMD 64-bit AMD Turbo Core 3.0 AMD PowerNow! AMD VT (Virtualization technology) AMD EVP (Enhanced Virus Protection)	AMD 64-bit AMD Turbo Core 3. 0 AMD PowerNow! AMD VT (Virtualization technology) AMD EVP (Enhanced Virus Protection)
Built-in graphics core		No	No
Built-in memory controller
Maximum memory size, GB		32	32
Memory types		DDR3	DDR3
Maximum frequency, MHz		1866	1866
Number of memory channels		2	2
Maximum number of modules per channel		2	2

Packaging, Shipping Contents, and Appearance

The processor comes in a small, branded cardboard box. The abundance of black colors and the inscription «Black Edition» indicate that there is a processor with an unlocked multiplier inside. The phrase “Achieve ultimate power with up to 5.0 GHz and 8 cores” also indicates the possibility of optimizing its parameters. Frankly speaking, overclocking to 5 GHz for a model that operates at a frequency of 3.2 GHz in the nominal mode is a pretty bold statement. Although, on the other hand, the top 8-core processors from the AMD Vishera family did not achieve such heights, why not the AMD FX-8320E models repeat their feat?

Information about the main characteristics of the processor, as always, is concentrated on a sticker with a barcode.

The box contains:

processor packed in a plastic blister for additional protection;
cooler;
user manual;
AMD FX series logo sticker.

As we mentioned above, the AMD FX-8320E belongs to the AMD Vishera family. Therefore, the arrangement of contacts on the back side fully corresponds to the Socket AM3 + connector.

The heat dissipation cover has the series name (AMD FX) and model mark (FD832EWMW8KHK). The countries where the crystal was grown (Germany) and where the final assembly of the processor took place (Malaysia) are also indicated. The mark «2011» once again confirms the opinion that the AMD FX-8320E is not a new solution, but is based on previously developed technologies.

Stock cooling system

However, it’s impossible to say that AMD, represented by AMD FX-8320E, simply released a complete copy of AMD FX-8320. It is enough to look at least at the standard cooling system. Decreasing TDP to 95 W made it possible to abandon the bulky cooler with copper heat pipes, which is bundled with the AMD FX-8320. That is, at least the final cost of the «boxed» version of the AMD FX-8320E model is reduced.

As for the design features of the cooling system used here, you will not find anything new: a standard aluminum radiator with a square base, to which four sections of fins are attached, and a low profile fan. This version of the cooler has already been repeatedly tested on other 9AMD’s 5-watt processors, so there is no doubt that its capabilities will be enough here too. True, from the point of view of the “noise / cooling efficiency” indicator, it will, of course, be inferior to more productive solutions from third-party manufacturers, especially when it comes to overclocking.

For comparison, here is a photo with a standard AMD FX-8320E processor cooling system (on the right) and its analogue for models with a TDP of 65 W (on the left). Therefore, if you think that in this case the manufacturer was simply greedy, we hasten to reassure you — everything is not so bad.

A 70 mm Foxconn PVA070F12H fan of rather high power — 5.04 W is used to blow the radiator fins. Judging by the markings, it is based on a hydrodynamic bearing, which is more reliable and durable than a conventional bushing. The fan is connected to the motherboard using a 4-pin connector, that is, it provides full support for modern algorithms for controlling its rotation speed.

Specification analysis

In normal operation, the AMD FX-8320E runs at 3200 MHz with a base frequency of 200 MHz and a x16 multiplier. At the time of taking the readings, the core voltage was 1.104 V. Of course, I would very much like the TDP to drop from 125 to 95 W without a drop in processor speed. However, as you can see, AMD engineers failed to pull off such a trick. Although the difference in the nominal frequency is only 300 MHz (remember, AMD FX-8320 has it equal to 3500 MHz), which, in principle, is not so much.

Moreover, in turbo mode, using AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology, the speed of AMD FX-8320E is the same as that of its predecessor — 4000 MHz. When this frequency is reached, the multiplier increases by 4 points to the value of «x20», and the voltage — to 1.248 V. Unfortunately, we did not have the AMD FX-8320 model for testing, so there is nothing to compare this indicator with.

Speaking about the turbo mode, it is worth making one important clarification: the speed of 4000 MHz is achieved only occasionally and with very little load. The launch of any more or less demanding process immediately leads to a drop in frequency to the mark of 3500 MHz, and sometimes even lower.

This is clearly evidenced by the graphs obtained during the passage of the AIDA64 Stress CPU stress test by the AMD FX-8320E processor. Throughout the experiment, the speed of its operation varied within 3200 — 3500 MHz, while the voltage was 1.056 — 1.404 V.

Mugen 3), which is a pretty good result. It is interesting to note that during testing of the 65-watt AMD A10-7800, a similar figure was recorded. This suggests that either the TDP level in the APU is too high (which is extremely unlikely), or in the AMD FX-8320E it is below 95 W. Be that as it may, this state of affairs only plays into the hands of the user. Because it will be possible to squeeze more megahertz out of the processor without resorting to buying too expensive cooling systems.

In idle mode, the multiplier is reduced to the value «x7», thus the frequency drops to 1400 MHz.