AMD FX-8320E vs AMD Opteron 3380 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records show a direct comparison between two AMD eight-core processors from the Socket AM3+ era, yet the available benchmark suites for each chip tell very different stories. The AMD Opteron 3380 has results across the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suites, while the AMD FX-8320E only has Geekbench scores recorded. This means a direct apples-to-apples comparison is limited by the datasets, but the numbers that exist provide meaningful insight into each processor's strengths.

Looking at raw average benchmark scores, the Opteron 3380 edges ahead with an average of 1071, while the FX-8320E sits at 1059. That is a difference of roughly 1.1% in favor of the server part. When placed against nearest rivals, the Opteron 3380 matches the AMD Athlon X4 880K at an identical average score of 1071 with a 0% delta, while the Intel Core i5-5287U and Intel Core i3-4170T both trail by 0.1% at 1072. The FX-8320E, meanwhile, finds itself in a tight cluster: the Intel Core i3-4350 matches at 1058 with a 0.1% delta, the AMD Ryzen 5 2500U also hits 1058 with 0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-2760QM comes in at 1057, a 0.2% delta.

In multi-threaded Cinebench testing, the Opteron 3380 posts a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 373, a Cinebench R20 multicore score of 1555, and a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 3704. These results show a processor that scales reasonably across rendering workloads, though the single-core scores are modest: 52 in R15, 219 in R20, and 522 in R23. The FX-8320E has no Cinebench data in the database, but its Geekbench multicore score of 1681 and single-core score of 437 indicate a different performance profile. The Geekbench single-core figure of 437 is notably higher relative to the Opteron's Cinebench single-core numbers, suggesting the FX chip has a clock-speed advantage in lightly threaded tasks.

Both processors share the same 32 nm process node, the same 1,200 million transistor count, and the same 315 mm² die size. Cache configurations are identical: 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. Memory support matches as well, with DDR3 dual-channel and 29.9 GB/s bandwidth. The decisive differences in benchmark outcomes likely stem from architectural generation and clock speeds rather than cache or memory capacity.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Opteron 3380 wins in sustained multi-core rendering workloads based on the recorded Cinebench data. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 3704 demonstrates that it can handle parallel processing tasks without collapsing under thermal or power constraints. The 65 W TDP is a key factor here; the Opteron achieves its multi-core results while drawing significantly less power than the FX-8320E's 95 W TDP. For server or workstation environments where multiple sockets run concurrently, this efficiency advantage matters more than raw peak performance.

The AMD FX-8320E wins in scenarios where higher clock speeds translate directly to performance. With a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, it outpaces the Opteron's 2.60 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The Geekbench single-core score of 437 reflects this advantage in single-threaded tasks, where the FX chip's higher frequency allows it to complete work faster. Additionally, the FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, making it a candidate for overclocking scenarios, while the Opteron 3380 is locked. The database shows the FX-8320E is positioned as a desktop part, whereas the Opteron targets server and workstation deployments.

For memory-bound tasks, both processors are on equal footing: dual-channel DDR3 at 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, with no ECC support on either. PCIe Gen 2 is present on both, and integrated graphics are only available through certain motherboard chipsets, not the CPUs themselves. The FX-8320E's higher boost clock gives it an edge in bursty workloads that rely on single-core speed, such as older games or lightly threaded applications, while the Opteron's lower TDP and multi-core Cinebench scores make it the choice for rendering farms or virtualized environments.

The average benchmark score difference is small, 1071 versus 1059, and both processors sit at the 29th percentile among all CPUs in the database. This places them in the same performance tier, but the nature of their wins differs: the Opteron wins on efficiency and multi-core rendering, the FX wins on clock speed and single-thread responsiveness.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case. For server and workstation deployments where multi-core rendering is the primary workload, the AMD Opteron 3380 is the better choice. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 3704 shows solid parallel performance, and its 65 W TDP means less heat and power draw in dense installations. The Opteron also matches or slightly exceeds the FX-8320E's average benchmark score (1071 versus 1059), making it the stronger overall performer in the recorded metrics.

For desktop users who prioritize single-thread speed and overclocking headroom, the AMD FX-8320E is the more appropriate pick. Its 4.00 GHz boost clock and unlocked multiplier provide flexibility that the Opteron lacks. The Geekbench single-core score of 437 indicates better lightweight task performance, even though the average benchmark score trails slightly.

Neither processor is a clear winner across the board. The Opteron leads in Cinebench multi-core, the FX leads in Geekbench single-core. The 29th percentile ranking for both confirms they belong to the same performance class, but the FX-8320E's higher clocks and desktop orientation make it the better fit for interactive use, while the Opteron's lower TDP and server pedigree make it the safer choice for always-on workloads.

Buyers should note that both parts are end-of-life and that neither supports ECC memory, despite the Opteron's server positioning. The FX-8320E launched at $147, while the Opteron 3380 launched at $229, but the database does not track current pricing, and the performance gap does not justify a large price difference for most users. The FX-8320E offers comparable average performance with higher single-core speed, while the Opteron offers better multi-core efficiency per watt.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Opteron 3380 has an average benchmark score of 1071, while the AMD FX-8320E has an average score of 1059.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each processor?

A: The Opteron 3380 has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The FX-8320E has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz.

Q: Is the FX-8320E overclockable?

A: Yes, the FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, while the Opteron 3380 does not.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Opteron 3380 has a TDP of 65 W, while the FX-8320E has a TDP of 95 W.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: No, neither processor supports ECC memory according to the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a common foundation but diverge in architectural generation and market positioning. The AMD Opteron 3380 uses the K10 architecture with the codename Delhi, part of the Opteron 3000 series. The AMD FX-8320E uses the Piledriver architecture with the codename Vishera, part of the FX series. Both are built on a 32 nm process node, with 1,200 million transistors and a 315 mm² die size, but the underlying microarchitecture differs significantly.

The Opteron 3380's K10 architecture is an older design originally developed for server workloads, emphasizing stability and efficiency over peak clock speeds. Its 2.60 GHz base clock and 3.60 GHz boost clock reflect a conservative approach to power management. The FX-8320E's Piledriver architecture is a later iteration of AMD's modular design, optimized for higher frequencies and desktop performance. Its 3.20 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost clocks demonstrate this focus.

Cache hierarchies are identical: 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. Memory support is also the same, with DDR3 dual-channel and 29.9 GB/s bandwidth. Both processors use PCIe Gen 2 and lack integrated graphics, relying on motherboard chipsets for display output. Neither supports ECC memory, which is notable for the Opteron given its server classification.

The FX-8320E was manufactured by GlobalFoundries, while the Opteron's foundry is not listed in the database. The FX-8320E was released in September 2014, while the Opteron 3380 was released in December 2012, making the FX chip a later design. The Opteron's 65 W TDP versus the FX's 95 W TDP represents a significant efficiency gap, likely a result of the Opteron's lower clocks and server-oriented power management.

The FX-8320E's unlocked multiplier is a key architectural difference, enabling user-controlled overclocking. The Opteron 3380 is locked, which aligns with its server role where stability and consistent performance are prioritized over user tuning. The market segments also differ: the Opteron targets Server/Workstation, while the FX-8320E targets Desktop. Both are end-of-life products, but the architectural choices reflect their intended environments: the Opteron for sustained multi-core workloads with lower power draw, the FX for higher single-thread performance and enthusiast flexibility.