AMD Athlon X4 950 vs AMD FX-8320E Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Athlon X4 950 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds of each chip?

A: The FX-8320E runs at a 3.20 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.00 GHz. The Athlon X4 950 has a 3.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 950 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The FX-8320E is limited to DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, but the Athlon X4 950 does not.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The FX-8320E is end-of-life, while the Athlon X4 950 is listed as active in production.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The FX-8320E scores 1059 on average, slightly ahead of the Athlon X4 950's 1047, a difference of about 1.1%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD design families, and the gap shows clearly in their underlying architectures. The FX-8320E is built on the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, and uses a 32 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Athlon X4 950, by contrast, uses the Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename, fabricated on a 28 nm process at the same foundry. That newer node holds 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, meaning the Athlon packs more transistors into a smaller physical area.

Cache layouts also diverge sharply. The FX-8320E carries 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The Athlon X4 950 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, but no L3 cache at all. The absence of L3 on the Athlon is a significant architectural trade-off, one that affects how quickly data can be shared across cores and how well the chip handles working sets larger than the L2.

Memory support reflects the generational split. The FX-8320E uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 29.9 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Athlon X4 950 uses DDR4 with dual-channel access and a higher 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Athlon also brings PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, whereas the FX-8320E is limited to PCIe Gen 2. Integrated graphics on the FX-8320E are noted as available on certain motherboards as a chipset feature, while the Athlon X4 950 lists no integrated graphics at all.

Socket compatibility is a major divider. The FX-8320E fits the AMD Socket AM3+, while the Athlon X4 950 requires AMD Socket AM4. That means the two chips cannot be dropped into the same motherboard, and any platform decision between them locks out the other option. The process node difference, transistor counts, cache hierarchies, memory types, and sockets all point to two very different platform generations despite both carrying AMD branding.

Where Each One Wins

The FX-8320E wins on raw core count and thread count. With 8 cores and 8 threads, it offers double the parallel execution resources of the Athlon X4 950's 4 cores and 4 threads. For workloads that scale with core count, such as multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or compilation, the FX-8320E is positioned to handle more simultaneous tasks. Its larger L2 cache (8 MB versus 2 MB) and the presence of a shared 8 MB L3 cache also give it an advantage in data-heavy workloads where cache misses would penalize the smaller cache design.

The Athlon X4 950 wins on platform modernity and efficiency. Its 65 W TDP is lower than the FX-8320E's 95 W TDP, making it a lighter load on cooling and power delivery. The DDR4 memory support and PCIe Gen 3 connectivity place it in a more current ecosystem, which matters for system builders who want access to newer components. The Athlon also has a higher base clock (3.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz), which can help in lightly threaded applications that respond to raw clock speed rather than core count. Its boost clock of 3.80 GHz trails the FX-8320E's 4.00 GHz however.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Athlon's smaller core count and higher base clock could give it an edge in everyday tasks like web browsing or office productivity, where the FX-8320E's extra cores may sit idle. But the data shows both chips land near the same average benchmark score, 1059 versus 1047, so neither holds a decisive overall lead. The FX-8320E is the choice for multi-threaded throughput, while the Athlon X4 950 suits builds that favor a newer socket, lower power draw, and DDR4 memory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FX-8320E | AMD Athlon X4 950 |

|-------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Piledriver | Excavator |

| Codename | Vishera | Bristol Ridge |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,200 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 315 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 8 MB | 2 MB |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 29.9 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-09-01 | 2017-07-26 |

| Launch MSRP | $147 | Not available |

The table shows a clear generational split. The FX-8320E offers more cores, more cache, and a higher boost clock, but the Athlon X4 950 counters with a newer process, higher memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 3, and lower TDP. The Athlon also has no L3 cache, a notable omission. The FX-8320E is the only one with an unlocked multiplier, which overclockers will note. The release dates are nearly three years apart, with the FX-8320E arriving in September 2014 and the Athlon X4 950 in July 2017.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data between these two processors is not available in the database, so the comparison relies on their respective benchmark suites and average scores.

The FX-8320E records a Geekbench multicore score of 1681 and a single-core score of 437. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 1059. The Athlon X4 950 does not have Geekbench results in the database, but it shows Cinebench R15 multicore at 306, Cinebench R20 multicore at 1277, Cinebench R20 single-core at 180, Cinebench R23 multicore at 3041, and Cinebench R23 single-core at 429. The Athlon's average benchmark score is 1047.

The difference in average scores is small, roughly 1.1% in favor of the FX-8320E. That puts both chips in the same performance tier, with the FX-8320E ranking at the 29th percentile among all CPUs and the Athlon X4 950 also at the 29th percentile. Their nearest rivals confirm the tight grouping. The FX-8320E sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i3-4350, AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, Intel Core i3-4360, and Intel Core i7-2760QM. The Athlon X4 950 is within 0.2% of the AMD PRO A10-8770, Intel Core i5-6350HQ, AMD PRO A10-9700, and Intel Pentium Gold G5620.

The benchmark results indicate that the FX-8320E's extra cores and L3 cache do not translate into a dominant overall lead, at least in the averaged data. Its Geekbench multicore score of 1681 shows strength in multi-threaded tasks, but the Athlon's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 3041 suggests it holds its own in modern rendering workloads despite having half the cores. The single-core Cinebench R23 results are nearly identical, 429 for the Athlon versus 437 for the FX-8320E in Geekbench single-core, though these tests are not directly comparable. The overall picture is one of parity, with the FX-8320E edging ahead in aggregate but the Athlon X4 950 delivering competitive performance on a newer, more efficient platform.