AMD FX-8320E vs AMD PRO A10-9700 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD FX-8320E and AMD PRO A10-9700 represent two distinct generations of AMD desktop silicon, yet the database places them within a single percentile band. Both processors sit at the 29th percentile among all CPUs tracked, a telling coincidence that suggests their overall performance profiles are far closer than their architectural differences imply. The FX-8320E carries an average benchmark score of 1059, while the PRO A10-9700 trails marginally at 1045, a gap of roughly 1.3 percent. That slim margin, however, masks substantial divergence in how each chip handles different workloads.

The FX-8320E ships with eight physical cores and eight threads, while the PRO A10-9700 offers only four cores and four threads. The former's Geekbench multicore result of 1681 contrasts with the latter's absence of that specific test in the database, making direct head-to-head comparisons incomplete. What the recorded data does show is that the FX-8320E's single-core Geekbench score of 437 stands against the PRO A10-9700's Cinebench R23 single-core result of 428. These numbers come from different benchmark suites, so cross-test comparisons must be treated cautiously, yet the similarity in magnitude hints that neither chip dominates in lightly threaded tasks.

The PRO A10-9700, however, provides a richer set of Cinebench measurements. Its R23 multicore score of 3037 and single-core score of 428 reveal a processor that scales reasonably across its four threads. The R20 results of 1275 multicore and 179 single-core, along with an R15 multicore score of 306, paint a consistent picture of modest but competent throughput. The FX-8320E lacks comparable Cinebench entries in the database, so the only meaningful cross-processor observation comes from the Geekbench figures, where the FX-8320E's multicore advantage appears substantial relative to what the PRO A10-9700's other scores suggest.

Nearest rival data places both chips in similar company. The FX-8320E sits within 0.2 percent of the Intel Core i3-4350, AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, and Intel Core i7-2760QM, with delta percentages of 0.1, 0.1, and 0.2 respectively. The PRO A10-9700 matches the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 exactly, ties the Intel Core i5-6350HQ at zero delta, and trails the AMD PRO A10-8770 and AMD Athlon X4 950 by 0.1 and 0.2 percent. These near-identical average scores suggest that in aggregate, the two AMD parts deliver equivalent overall performance, even if their workload-specific behaviors differ.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The FX-8320E records an average benchmark score of 1059, while the PRO A10-9700 scores 1045. The FX-8320E leads by approximately 1.3 percent, though both occupy the 29th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor?

A: The FX-8320E's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-4350 and AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, both with average scores of 1058 and a delta of 0.1 percent, plus the Intel Core i3-4360 at 1061 with a -0.2 percent delta. The PRO A10-9700's nearest rivals are the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 at 1045 with zero delta, the Intel Core i5-6350HQ at 1046 with zero delta, and the AMD PRO A10-8770 at 1046 with a -0.1 percent delta.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The PRO A10-9700 supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, whereas the FX-8320E supports DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Do either processors include integrated graphics?

A: The PRO A10-9700 includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The FX-8320E does not have integrated graphics as part of its silicon, though the database notes that certain motherboards with a chipset feature could provide display output.

Q: What are the production statuses of these processors?

A: The FX-8320E is end-of-life, while the PRO A10-9700 remains active in production.

# The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow choice depending on workload. The FX-8320E, with its eight cores and eight threads, holds a structural advantage for parallel tasks. Its Geekbench multicore score of 1681, while not directly comparable to the PRO A10-9700's Cinebench numbers, signals strong scaling across multiple threads. The PRO A10-9700, by contrast, offers only four threads, yet its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 3037 demonstrates that its Excavator architecture extracts respectable throughput from those fewer threads.

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded computation where software can exploit eight cores, the FX-8320E appears the stronger candidate. The recorded benchmark data shows a processor that, despite its older Piledriver architecture, maintains parity in average score with its rival while offering double the core count. The PRO A10-9700, however, wins on efficiency and platform modernity. Its 65-watt TDP versus the FX-8320E's 95-watt TDP means substantially lower power draw, and its DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the FX-8320E's DDR3 at 29.9 GB/s.

Neither processor escapes the bottom third of the database. Both sit at the 29th percentile, and their nearest rivals include low-end Intel parts like the Pentium Gold G5620 and older mobile chips like the Core i7-2760QM. The verdict from the data is that the FX-8320E suits users with heavily threaded workloads who can tolerate higher power consumption, while the PRO A10-9700 suits users who need integrated graphics, newer memory standards, and lower operating costs.

# Specification Differences

The two processors diverge across nearly every specification category. The FX-8320E operates with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the PRO A10-9700 starts higher at 3.50 GHz base but boosts lower to 3.80 GHz. Thermal design power differs significantly: the FX-8320E draws 95 watts, the PRO A10-9700 draws 65 watts.

Sockets separate the platforms entirely. The FX-8320E uses AMD Socket AM3+, while the PRO A10-9700 uses AMD Socket AM4. Memory support follows the platform split: the FX-8320E runs DDR3, the PRO A10-9700 runs DDR4. Memory bandwidth improves from 29.9 GB/s on the older chip to 38.4 GB/s on the newer one. PCIe connectivity also advances, with the FX-8320E limited to Gen 2 and the PRO A10-9700 offering Gen 3 with 8 lanes available to the CPU.

The FX-8320E has its multiplier unlocked, enabling overclocking, while the PRO A10-9700 does not. Integrated graphics appear only on the PRO A10-9700 via Radeon R7, whereas the FX-8320E relies on motherboard chipset features for display output. Release dates differ by roughly three years, with the FX-8320E launching in September 2014 and the PRO A10-9700 in July 2017. The FX-8320E carried a launch MSRP of $147, while the PRO A10-9700 has no recorded launch price in the database.

# Architecture Differences

The FX-8320E belongs to the Piledriver architecture under the Vishera codename, fabricated on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It integrates 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. Its cache hierarchy includes 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. This is a mature, power-hungry design from AMD's FX era, built for high core counts on the AM3+ platform.

The PRO A10-9700 uses the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also by GlobalFoundries. Despite the smaller process node, it packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 250 mm² die, a much higher transistor density than the older part. Its cache configuration is leaner: 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The Excavator design emphasizes efficiency and integration rather than raw core counts, pairing its four cores with a Radeon R7 graphics component on the same die.

The architectural philosophies could hardly be more different. Piledriver prioritized wide multi-threading with eight cores, a large shared L3 cache, and high clock speeds, accepting a 95-watt TDP as the cost. Excavator focused on shrinking the die, reducing power to 65 watts, integrating graphics, and adopting modern platform features like DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3, while sacrificing core count and L3 cache. The transistor counts reflect this divergence: the newer chip uses over two and a half times as many transistors in a smaller area, largely to accommodate the graphics block and newer memory controller.

# Where Each One Wins

The FX-8320E wins in scenarios that demand parallel processing. Its eight cores and eight threads provide double the execution resources of the PRO A10-9700, and its 8 MB L3 cache gives it a substantial buffer for shared data across threads. Geekbench multicore at 1681, while not directly comparable to the PRO A10-9700's Cinebench scores, indicates a chip that thrives when software spreads work across many threads. The unlocked multiplier further extends its appeal for users willing to overclock, though the 95-watt TDP already runs hot by modern standards.

The PRO A10-9700 wins on platform features and efficiency. Its 65-watt TDP makes it suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems where the FX-8320E would require more robust cooling. DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth outperforms the FX-8320E's DDR3 at 29.9 GB/s, benefiting memory-sensitive applications. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display workloads, something the FX-8320E cannot offer without relying on motherboard chipset features.

The PRO A10-9700 also wins on longevity. Its active production status contrasts with the FX-8320E's end-of-life designation, meaning the newer part remains available for new builds while the older one fades from supply chains. The AM4 socket provides a forward-looking platform, whereas AM3+ represents a dead end.

For users with existing AM3+ motherboards and heavily threaded workloads, the FX-8320E makes sense as a drop-in upgrade. For new system builders prioritizing low power, integrated graphics, and modern memory standards, the PRO A10-9700 is the data-backed choice. The average scores nearly match, but the workload profiles dictate the decision: eight threads for parallel tasks, four threads with better efficiency for everyday computing.