Are you diving into the world of AMD’s FX processors and wondering about the differences between two popular options? The FX-8350 and FX-8320 have both been staples for budget-conscious builders and enthusiasts seeking decent multi-core performance.
Both processors hail from the same “Vishera” architecture, promising eight cores for demanding tasks. However, subtle variations in clock speed and potentially other factors can lead to noticeable performance discrepancies in real-world applications and gaming scenarios.
This comparison aims to cut through the technical jargon and provide a clear, concise breakdown of the fx-8350 vs 8320. We’ll explore their key specifications, benchmark results, and ultimately help you decide which of these venerable CPUs might still be the better choice for your needs today.
Specs at a Glance
| Feature | fx-8350 | 8320 |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Vishera | Vishera |
| Cores | 4 (2 modules) | 4 (2 modules) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz | 4.0 GHz |
| TDP | 125W | 125W |
| Socket | AM3+ | AM3+ |
| L2 Cache | 4 x 1MB | 4 x 1MB |
| L3 Cache | 8MB | 8MB |
| Integrated Graphics | No | No |
| Manufacturing Process | 32nm | 32nm |
| Unlocked Multiplier | Yes | Yes |
Feature-by-Feature Breakdown
Core Count
- Fx-8350: Features 8 cores, offering significant multi-tasking and heavy workload capabilities. This higher core count is beneficial for demanding applications and gaming.
- 8320: Also features 8 cores, providing the same fundamental multi-threaded performance as the 8350. It’s well-suited for similar parallel processing tasks.
- Winner: Tie
Clock Speed (Base)
- Fx-8350: Boasts a base clock speed of 4.0 GHz. This higher base frequency contributes to better performance in single-threaded tasks and overall responsiveness.
- 8320: Comes with a base clock speed of 3.5 GHz. While still respectable, it is noticeably lower than the 8350, which can impact performance in clock-speed-dependent applications.
- Winner: fx-8350
Clock Speed (Turbo)
- Fx-8350: Offers a turbo clock speed of up to 4.2 GHz. This allows it to dynamically boost performance when needed, providing a slight edge in bursty workloads.
- 8320: Features a turbo clock speed of up to 4.0 GHz. While it has a turbo boost, it’s capped at a lower frequency than the 8350.
- Winner: fx-8350
Cache (L3)
- Fx-8350: Equipped with 8MB of L3 cache. This larger cache size helps reduce memory latency and can improve performance in applications that frequently access data.
- 8320: Comes with 8MB of L3 cache. The cache size is identical to the 8350, meaning there’s no difference in this crucial performance factor.
- Winner: Tie
TDP (Thermal Design Power)
- Fx-8350: Has a TDP of 125W. This indicates higher power consumption and potentially more heat generation, requiring a robust cooling solution.
- 8320: Also has a TDP of 125W. Both processors draw a similar amount of power and will demand adequate cooling to maintain optimal performance and longevity.
- Winner: Tie
Overclocking Potential
- Fx-8350: Generally considered to have good overclocking potential, often capable of reaching higher stable frequencies than the 8320 due to its already higher base clock.
- 8320: Also has good overclocking potential and was often favored by enthusiasts for its lower price point and ability to be overclocked to match or exceed the 8350’s stock speeds.
- Winner: fx-8350 (Slight edge out of the box, but 8320 can be pushed)
Price (Launch/Typical)
- Fx-8350: Launched at a higher price point, reflecting its improved clock speeds and position as the more premium option.
- 8320: Was significantly cheaper at launch and remained a more budget-friendly choice. This made it a popular option for performance-per-dollar builds.
- Winner: 8320
Performance Difference (Stock)
- Fx-8350: Offers a noticeable performance advantage in most tasks due to its higher base and turbo clock speeds. This translates to better responsiveness and faster completion times for CPU-intensive applications.
- 8320: While still a capable processor, it lags behind the 8350 in stock performance benchmarks. The difference is most apparent in single-core dependent tasks and games.
- Winner: fx-8350
Winner by Category
| Category | Winner |
|---|---|
| Clock Speed (Stock) | fx-8350 |
| Overclocking Potential | fx-8350 (Slight Edge) |
| Value for Money | 8320 |
| Out-of-the-Box Performance | fx-8350 |
| Core Architecture | Tie |
| Platform Compatibility | Tie |
What They Have in Common
- Architecture: Both processors are built on AMD’s Vishera architecture, meaning they share the same underlying design principles and instruction sets.
- Core and Thread Count: They both feature 4 cores, organized into 2 modules, and support 4 threads, indicating similar multitasking capabilities at a fundamental level.
- Socket Type: Both CPUs utilize the AM3+ socket, ensuring compatibility with a wide range of motherboards designed for this platform.
- Tdp (thermal Design Power): They share the same 125W TDP, suggesting comparable power consumption and heat output under load, requiring similar cooling solutions.
- Cache Configuration: Both processors are equipped with 4 x 1MB of L2 cache and 8MB of L3 cache, providing identical levels of fast access memory for frequently used data.
- Manufacturing Process: They are both manufactured using a 32nm process, indicating a similar level of silicon fabrication technology.
- Unlocked Multiplier: Both CPUs feature an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking to potentially achieve higher performance levels.
Fx-8350 Vs 8320 Buying Guide
Performance Expectations
Both the FX-8350 and FX-8320 are capable processors for their generation, offering a significant jump in multi-core performance compared to older dual-core or quad-core CPUs. For everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and media consumption, you’ll find them to be more than adequate. However, when it comes to demanding applications like video editing, 3D rendering, or modern gaming, the slight clock speed advantage of the FX-8350 might become noticeable, especially in scenarios that can effectively utilize all its cores. (See Also: Demeyere 5 Plus Vs Atlantis )
Gaming Considerations
In gaming, the performance difference between the FX-8350 and FX-8320 is often minimal, especially when paired with a mid-range to high-end graphics card that becomes the primary bottleneck. While the FX-8350’s higher clock speed can provide a few extra frames per second in CPU-intensive titles, the FX-8320 often offers a much better price-to-performance ratio for gaming. If your primary focus is gaming and budget is a concern, the FX-8320 is a very compelling choice, as the gains from the FX-8350 might not justify the additional cost for many gamers.
Price and Availability
The FX-8320 is generally found at a lower price point than the FX-8350, making it a more budget-friendly option. This price difference can be significant, especially if you are looking to build a system on a tighter budget. Availability might vary, as both are older processors, but you’re more likely to find the FX-8320 readily available on the used market or from retailers clearing out older stock. Consider the total system cost when deciding; the savings on the CPU could be allocated to a better GPU or more RAM.
Overclocking Potential
Both the FX-8350 and FX-8320 are unlocked processors, meaning they are designed for overclocking. Enthusiasts looking to push their performance further can often achieve substantial gains with adequate cooling. The FX-8320, being clocked lower out of the box, sometimes offers a bit more headroom for overclocking, potentially allowing it to reach or even surpass the stock speeds of the FX-8350. However, consistent high overclocks require a robust motherboard and an efficient cooling solution for both processors. (See Also: Nikon 50 1 8 Vs 1 4 )
Who Should Buy What?
Buy fx-8350 If…
- You need the highest possible stock clock speeds for your AM3+ platform.
- You plan on significant overclocking and want the best silicon lottery starting point.
- You prioritize raw performance out-of-the-box for demanding applications or games.
- Budget is less of a concern and you want the top-tier option for this generation.
Buy 8320 If…
- You are looking for a more budget-friendly option that still offers excellent performance.
- You plan on overclocking and can potentially match or exceed the 8350’s performance with tuning.
- Your motherboard might have slightly less robust VRMs and you want a slightly less power-hungry chip at stock.
- You are building a system where the slight clock speed difference is not critical.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main difference between the FX-8350 and FX-8320?
The primary distinction lies in their stock clock speeds. The FX-8350 boasts a higher base clock (4.0 GHz) and boost clock (4.2 GHz) compared to the FX-8320, which has a base clock of 3.5 GHz and a boost clock of 4.0 GHz. This means the FX-8350 offers slightly better out-of-the-box performance. However, both are unlocked and can be overclocked, often allowing the FX-8320 to match or exceed the FX-8350’s performance with proper tuning.
Is the FX-8350 significantly better for gaming than the FX-8320?
For most gaming scenarios, the difference is negligible and often imperceptible. Modern games are frequently bottlenecked by the graphics card rather than the CPU, especially with mid-range to high-end GPUs. While the FX-8350 might offer a few extra frames per second in extremely CPU-intensive titles, the FX-8320 provides a far superior price-to-performance ratio for gaming. If budget is a concern, the FX-8320 is the more sensible gaming choice.
Which processor is better for multitasking and productivity?
Both processors feature eight cores, making them excellent for multitasking and productivity applications that can utilize multiple threads. The FX-8350’s higher clock speeds will offer a slight edge in applications that are not perfectly optimized for multi-core performance or that benefit from faster individual core speeds. However, for heavily threaded workloads like video editing, rendering, or running virtual machines, the difference is often marginal, and the FX-8320 remains a strong contender. (See Also: Samsung Pro Vs Evo 850 )
Do I need a special motherboard for these processors?
Yes, both the FX-8350 and FX-8320 require motherboards with the AMD AM3+ socket. It’s crucial to ensure that the motherboard’s BIOS is updated to support these specific FX-series processors. Additionally, for overclocking, a motherboard with a robust VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) design and good heatsinks is highly recommended to handle the increased power delivery and heat generation.
Which processor offers better value for money?
Generally, the FX-8320 offers better value for money. Its lower price point, combined with its strong overclocking potential, allows it to often match or even surpass the performance of the FX-8350 for a lower cost. If you are on a budget and willing to put in a little effort to overclock, the FX-8320 is the more economical and practical choice. The FX-8350 is for those who want a bit more out-of-the-box performance without necessarily overclocking.
Final Verdict
Both the AMD FX-8350 and FX-8320 are capable eight-core processors from their era, offering solid performance for their price, especially on the used market. The FX-8350 holds a slight edge in stock clock speeds, providing marginally better out-of-the-box performance. However, the FX-8320’s lower cost and excellent overclocking potential allow it to frequently match or even exceed the FX-8350’s performance with minimal effort. For budget-conscious builders and those willing to tinker, the FX-8320 offers superior value and is the more practical choice for most users.
Winner: AMD FX-8320