AMD FX-8320E CPU Review: The Other 95W Vishera

AMD FX-8320E Conclusion

Anyone building a new performance system today is not exactly spoiled for choice. On the super extreme end, native octo-core processors with threading are in the market. AMD’s high end FX models start by comparison to the Core i5 line but boasts double the threads, albeit at almost double the power consumption. Without looking at the reasons for AMD’s E-series launch, it can be easy to scoff and write these processors off.

AMD’s aim with the FX-8370, FX-8370E and FX-8320E was in part to generate new customers at a lower price portfolio and for those wanting to upgrade their AMD CPU from something lower down the stack. Users who purchased an FX-4100 or FX-6300 can happy get more performance by swapping in a CPU, rather than replacing the motherboard and potentially the DRAM to fit. The 95W power point for the E series allows 8-threads for almost all AM3+ motherboards ever made.

That being said, performance of the CPU is still reminiscent of 2012 when the first FX-8000 CPUs were launched and the 32nm process node on which it is formed. Back in our review of the FX-8370E, our conclusion was that it performed much like the FX-8150 except in power consumption, and it was perhaps a foregone conclusion that the FX-8320E was not going to be any better given the statistics on paper.

A plus point worth noting is that the turbo mode seemed a lot more aggressive than our FX-8150 and FX-8370E numbers. This allowed for higher frequencies in some of our variable threaded benchmarks, and gave some better results which is rather odd. However, it was only for a few select benchmarks in the end, with the pure single threaded ones and the fully multithreaded results still grasping at the FX-8150 numbers. The plus side in all this is that our FX-8150 power consumption measured significantly higher than the TDP (156W vs 125W TDP) and the FX-8320E gave a lower result (86W vs 95W TDP), essentially handing any performance/watt trophy to the FX-8320E.

The big number from our review however was the overclocking potential of our sample. Our FX-8320E overclocked like a beast (yes AMD, you can quote me on that), although your mileage may vary (as long as you quote this bit too). Our single data point gave 4.8 GHz at 1.550 volts for a 50% raise in both frequency and POV-Ray results, although the power consumption was over 3x the stock value (262W vs 86W). Most AMD users would also state that 1.550 volts was a bit high, so at 1.375 volts the CPU still gave 4.5 GHz which is still a good end.

The end result of the FX-8320E will be similar to that of the FX-8370E. Users will have to look at their use case and decide if an iterative CPU upgrade, from one of the earlier FX models or the Phenom II range, makes sense in their future computing. Putting down $150 on a CPU is reasonable enough if you have everything around it, although one might argue that if we add in the MSI 970 Gaming ($100), some memory ($50), some storage ($100) and a mid-range GPU ($150), then gaming at around $650 when you factor in the case and PSU is more than possible, especially when a similarly performing Intel system might cost more. AMD's key metric in this instance is pricing.

The end here will be the same as the FX-8370E review:

At the end of the day, most users feel that AMD needs to upgrade the architecture (and the chipset) to potentially increase performance or reduce power. At some point the architectures of the FX and APU line either need to diverge their separate ways, or there needs to be a hard earned reconciliation attempt to find a node and a manufacturing process suitable for both low power graphics cores and high frequency processor cores. We know about AMD's plans for 2016, dealing with ARM and x86, and the announcements on K12 so far point to AMD targeting servers, embedded markets and ultra-low power client devices. Here's hoping desktop side gets a good boost as well.