AMD FX-8320E vs AMD PRO A10-8770 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison challenge: the two processors do not share any identical benchmark tests in the database. The AMD FX-8320E has measurements only for Geekbench multicore and singlecore tests, scoring 1681 and 437 respectively. The AMD PRO A10-8770 instead has Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 results, with multicore scores of 306, 1276, and 3040, and singlecore scores of 180 and 429 in R20 and R23 respectively. Because the test suites do not overlap, a direct head-to-head numerical comparison on the same workload is impossible from the available data.

What the data does show is how each processor positions itself against its own nearest rivals. The FX-8320E achieves an average benchmark score of 1059, placing it 0.1% above the Intel Core i3-4350 (1058) and the AMD Ryzen 5 2500U (1058), while sitting 0.2% below the Intel Core i3-4360 (1061) and 0.2% above the Intel Core i7-2760QM (1057). This clustering indicates the FX-8320E sits in a tightly contested performance band, where a single percentage point separates it from four comparable processors.

The PRO A10-8770 records an average benchmark score of 1046, exactly matching the Intel Core i5-6350HQ (1046) with a 0% delta. It sits 0.1% below the AMD Athlon X4 950 (1047) and 0.1% above both the AMD PRO A10-9700 (1045) and the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 (1045). The delta percentages here are even tighter than the FX-8320E's rival set, suggesting the PRO A10-8770 is squarely in the middle of a very narrow performance cluster.

Interpreting the Geekbench scores for the FX-8320E: its multicore score of 1681 versus singlecore of 437 reveals a multicore advantage of roughly 3.85 times. This gap is substantial and reflects the processor's design philosophy of prioritizing parallel throughput over single-thread responsiveness. For the PRO A10-8770, the Cinebench R23 scores show a multicore result of 3040 versus singlecore of 429, a ratio of about 7.1 times. However, these are different benchmark suites, so the ratios are not directly comparable across the two chips.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story: both processors sit at the 29th percentile among all CPUs in the database. This places them in the same overall performance tier, despite their very different architectural approaches and core configurations. The average benchmark scores of 1059 and 1046 differ by only 1.2%, a margin that falls within what the rival deltas suggest is normal variation in this performance class.

# Architecture Differences

The FX-8320E and PRO A10-8770 represent two distinct generations of AMD design philosophy. The FX-8320E uses the Piledriver architecture under the Vishera codename, built on a 32 nm process node at GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors into a 315 mm² die. In contrast, the PRO A10-8770 uses the Excavator architecture under the Carrizo codename, fabricated on a 28 nm process at the same foundry, with 3,100 million transistors on a smaller 250 mm² die.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The FX-8320E offers 8 cores and 8 threads, while the PRO A10-8770 provides 4 cores and 4 threads. This doubling of cores likely explains the FX-8320E's higher Geekbench multicore score relative to its singlecore result. Clock speeds also differ: the FX-8320E has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the PRO A10-8770 runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The PRO A10-8770 has a higher base clock, but the FX-8320E has a higher boost ceiling.

Cache hierarchies are notably different. The FX-8320E has 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The PRO A10-8770 has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. This represents a significant difference in on-die memory resources, with the FX-8320E offering four times the L2 capacity and an additional 8 MB of L3.

Memory support and platform features create a generational split. The FX-8320E uses DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the PRO A10-8770 uses DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The PRO A10-8770's memory bandwidth is about 28% higher. PCIe generations also differ: the FX-8320E supports PCIe Gen 2, while the PRO A10-8770 supports PCIe Gen 3. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics represent a major divergence. The PRO A10-8770 includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU, making it a complete APU solution. The FX-8320E has no integrated graphics of its own, relying on chipset features on certain motherboards to provide display output. This means the PRO A10-8770 can run without a discrete graphics card, while the FX-8320E cannot.

Socket and platform compatibility further separate the two. The FX-8320E uses AMD Socket AM3+, while the PRO A10-8770 uses AMD Socket AM4. These are not interchangeable, meaning a motherboard designed for one will not accept the other. The FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the PRO A10-8770 has a locked multiplier. The FX-8320E is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the PRO A10-8770 remains active.

# Where Each One Wins

The FX-8320E's advantage lies in raw multi-threaded compute potential. Its 8 cores and 8 threads, combined with 8 MB of L2 and 8 MB of L3 cache, position it for workloads that scale across many threads. The Geekbench multicore score of 1681, which is 3.85 times its singlecore score of 437, demonstrates that the processor extracts substantial parallelism from its core count. This suggests favorable performance for rendering tasks, video encoding, scientific simulations, and other parallel compute workloads that can utilize eight threads.

The PRO A10-8770's strengths appear in different areas. Its higher base clock of 3.50 GHz gives it an edge in lightly threaded tasks that do not boost well. The Radeon R7 integrated graphics means it can handle display output and basic graphics acceleration without a discrete GPU, making it suitable for office productivity, media playback, and light gaming in a compact or budget-oriented desktop build. The DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth provides a faster memory subsystem, which can benefit memory-intensive workloads.

The FX-8320E wins on core count, cache capacity, and boost clock. The PRO A10-8770 wins on base clock, memory bandwidth, PCIe generation, integrated graphics, power efficiency (65 W TDP versus 95 W), and platform currency (AM4 versus AM3+). The PRO A10-8770 also has a smaller die size at 250 mm² versus 315 mm², despite integrating more transistors, indicating a denser design.

For users who need maximum parallel processing without concern for integrated graphics, the FX-8320E's eight cores provide a clear structural advantage. For users who want a single-chip solution with modern memory and PCIe support, the PRO A10-8770 offers a more integrated and contemporary package. The unlocked multiplier on the FX-8320E adds flexibility for enthusiasts, while the locked multiplier on the PRO A10-8770 suggests a more conservative target audience.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD PRO A10-8770 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The PRO A10-8770 supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the FX-8320E supports DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, making the PRO A10-8770 about 28% faster in theoretical memory bandwidth.

Q: Does the PRO A10-8770 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the PRO A10-8770 includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU. The FX-8320E has no integrated graphics and relies on chipset features on certain motherboards for display output.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboard?

A: No, the FX-8320E uses AMD Socket AM3+, while the PRO A10-8770 uses AMD Socket AM4. These sockets are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The FX-8320E has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the PRO A10-8770 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Q: What are the power consumption ratings?

A: The FX-8320E has a TDP of 95 W, while the PRO A10-8770 has a TDP of 65 W.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count: 8 versus 4. Thread count: 8 versus 4. Base clock: 3.20 GHz versus 3.50 GHz. Boost clock: 4.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. TDP: 95 W versus 65 W. Socket: AM3+ versus AM4. Architecture: Piledriver versus Excavator. Codename: Vishera versus Carrizo. Process node: 32 nm versus 28 nm. Transistor count: 1,200 million versus 3,100 million. Die size: 315 mm² versus 250 mm².

Cache configurations differ substantially: L1 is 384 KB versus 320 KB, L2 is 8 MB versus 2 MB, and L3 is 8 MB shared versus none. Memory support is DDR3 versus DDR4, with bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. PCIe generation is Gen 2 versus Gen 3. Integrated graphics are absent versus Radeon R7. The multiplier is unlocked versus locked. Production status is end-of-life versus active. The FX-8320E has a launch MSRP of $147, while the PRO A10-8770 has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates also differ, with the FX-8320E released in 2014 and no release date recorded for the PRO A10-8770.

# The Verdict

The data presents two processors that occupy the same overall performance percentile (29th) and nearly identical average benchmark scores (1059 versus 1046), yet they achieve this parity through fundamentally different means. The FX-8320E leverages eight Piledriver cores with substantial cache, while the PRO A10-8770 uses four Excavator cores with integrated graphics and modern platform support.

Users who prioritize multi-threaded compute capacity should choose the FX-8320E. Its 8-core configuration and 8 MB of L3 cache provide structural advantages for parallel workloads, and its higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz offers headroom for single-thread bursts. The unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for those who wish to push performance further, and the lower transistor count with a larger die suggests a simpler design that may be easier to cool.

Users who prioritize platform modernity and integration should choose the PRO A10-8770. Its DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, PCIe Gen 3 connectivity, and Radeon R7 integrated graphics make it a more complete package for a standalone desktop system. The 65 W TDP indicates lower power draw, and the active production status means continued availability. The smaller die size of 250 mm², despite packing 3,100 million transistors, points to a more advanced manufacturing process.

The FX-8320E is the pick for compute-heavy tasks that can use eight threads, provided the user accepts an older platform with DDR3 memory and no integrated graphics. The PRO A10-8770 is the pick for a modern, efficient, all-in-one desktop processor where integrated graphics and current connectivity standards matter more than raw core count. Both processors sit at the 29th percentile, so neither offers a decisive overall performance advantage; the choice comes down to workload characteristics and platform preferences.