AMD FX-8320E in the test

After we recently examined AMD's new FX-8370E processor, today we take a look at the FX-8320E, which is located in the middle of the AMD desktop processors. 8 cores, each with a clock rate of 3,2 GHz, turbo mode, but also a lower TDP of 95 watts are the key data. However, this processor is available for prices starting at 140 euros. Our test explains how the FX-8320E performs in practice.

Intro

AMD tries to squeeze as much performance as possible out of the Vishera processors so that you don't lose touch with Intel in the performance segment. While the APUs (CPU and graphics unit combined) are generally well positioned, they lag behind the competition in the actual processor business. AMD's high-end models of the FX series are a prime example of the approach mentioned. With the FX-9000 models, the maximum possible performance has been teased out of the architecture. However, this is at the expense of the power consumption and leads to a TDP of 220 watts. A value that Intel does not achieve even on the LGA 2011 socket.

With lower TDPs, AMD has responded to the charge of excessive power consumption and recently put the FX-8370E into the race. Now we have the FX-8320E, which also only joins the 95 watt class and tries to re-represent the midfield among AMD's desktop processors.

AMD's motto: You can build high-performance PCs at low prices, and advertise primarily with the eight processor cores, from which very well parallelized software can benefit massively. In addition, the 8320E has a base clock of 3,2 GHz and a turbo clock of around 4 GHz. For comparison: the non-E version clocks at 3,5 GHz in the basic clock and also 4 GHz in turbo mode.

On the following pages we clarify where the FX-8320E is to be classified, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the relatively inexpensive CPU.

Test environment

Hardware: Intel systems

Intel socket LGA-1150

  • Intel Core i7-4790K:
    Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 4,0 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i7-4770:
    Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i5-4670K:
    Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i5-4670:
    Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600

The new Haswell processors are operated on the MSI mainboard Z87-G43. We imported the latest beta BIOS V1.2B1 and activated all energy-saving mechanisms in the BIOS. The memory modules used come from G.Skill. It is a 4 x 4 GByte kit of the Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 with the latencies CL9-9-9-24.

Intel socket LGA-1155

  • Core i7 3770K:
    IB architecture, E1 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i5-3570K:
    IB architecture, E1 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Intel Core i7-2700K:
    Self-service architecture, D2 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Core i7 2600K:
    Self-service architecture, D2 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Core i5 2500K:
    SB architecture, D2 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1333

For Intel's "Sandy Bridge" and "Ivy Bridge" processors for the LGA-1155 socket, 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 are used, operated on DDR3-1333. The memories are operated with the CL9-9-9-24 2T latencies. That comes as a mainboard MSI Z77A-GD65* used with BIOS version 7751vP0. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.

MSI Z87-G43
Intel socket LGA-2011 and LGA-2011-3

  • Core i7-5960X
    R2 stepping, 3,0 GHz, 8 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR4-2133
  • Core i7-4960X
    S1 stepping, 3,6 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • Core i7-3960X
    C2 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600

For the processors of the LGA-2011 socket, 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 and an ASUS Rampage IV Gene with BIOS 4901 are used. The socket LGA-2011-3 is measured with 4 x 4 GByte Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666, operated with DDR4-2133 and timings of 15-15-15-36. An MSI X99S Gaming 7 with BIOS V17.4 is used as the mainboard.

Hardware: AMD systems

AMD Socket FM2 +

  • A10-7850K
    Steamroller architecture, A1 stepping, 3,7 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • A8-7600
    Steamroller architecture, A1 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • A10-6800K
    Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 4,1 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • A10-6700
    Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 3,7 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • A10-6500T
    Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 2,1 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600

The processors for FM2 and FM2 + were measured on the MSI A85XA-G65. The Kaveri models and the A10-6800K also on the MSI A88XM-E45.

AMD Socket AM3 +

  • FX-8370E:
    Piledriver architecture, C0 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • FX-8350:
    Piledriver architecture, C0 stepping, 4,0 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
  • FX-8150:
    Bulldozer architecture, B2 stepping, 3,6 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600

The same G.Skill modules are used for AMD's Bulldozer processors for the AM3 + socket as on the Intel systems. That comes as a mainboard ASUS Crosshair V Formula* (990FX chipset) used with BIOS 1703. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.

ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
Due to the lack of support for the new processor from our test board ASUS Crosshair V Formula, we had to change the board. The measurement results for the AM3 + socket were therefore completely created on the new ASUS Sabertooth 990FX.

AMD Socket FM2

  • A10-5800K
    Trinity architecture, A1 stepping, 3,8 GHz, 4 cores, 4 x DDR3-1600

The G.Skill DDR3 memory mentioned above works here as well. The Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 with BIOS F4 is used as the mainboard. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.

More hardware

Graphic card:

  • MSI Radeon HD 7970 Lightning
  • AMD Radeon HD 3450 (DDR3):
    only for measurements of power consumption

Memory:

  • 16 GByte (4 x 4 GB) G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600
    SPD operation: DDR3-1600, 9-9-9-24 at 1,5 volts

Power adapter:

  • be quiet! DARK POWER 550W R10

Hard disk:

  • Seagate ST2000VX000

Cooler:

Measurement:

Software and benchmarks

Operating system and driver

CPU benchmarks

    SiSoft Sandra 2013.05.19.44

Overall, we tried to focus strongly on real applications with the benchmarks and to distance ourselves from synthetic tests. Whenever possible, we also used the 64-bit version.

A special remark should be made about LAME: By default, LAME is created with an Intel C ++ compiler. In the past, this has repeatedly caused irritation, which is why we also use a version in our new benchmark course that we created ourselves with the help of Visual Studio 2010 from Microsoft. In terms of performance, however, it does no difference.

Other tools

Test methodology

Apart from the remarks already made on this and on the previous page regarding our test philosophy, we want to briefly summarize the essential points again. Unless otherwise stated in the direct test description, the following points always apply:

  • All available energy saving mechanisms are activated.
  • If the CPU has a turbo mode, this is activated.
  • If the CPU supports hyperthreading / core multithreading (CMT), this is activated.
  • If not mentioned otherwise, always comes MSI Radeon HD 7970 Lightning for use.

Technique

The new FX-8320E

In the technical sector there is of course nothing new to report today. The technical implementation is basically the same as it was when the Bulldozer in late 2011 by AMD, of course including the advantages of the current Piledriver cores.

AMD's current innovations - shown with the FX-8370E, as now also with the FX-8320E - are more of a “cosmetic” nature. The manufacturer simply reacts to the allegations that the AMD CPUs in the middle class segment are too power hungry and thus tries to present a more attractive TDP class. The two new E-models are therefore in the 95-watt TDP range and no longer in the 125-watt class like the 8370 and 8320.

The implementation takes place in simple steps, namely in the form of clock and voltage lowering - presumably also the DIE selection. The FX-8320E only has a base clock of 3,2 instead of 3,5 GHz. In turbo mode, however, it still clocks up 4 GHz, just like the previous FX-8320.

In addition, the FX-8000 series remains with models with four modules, whereby each of the modules can handle two threads and AMD therefore speaks of eight CPU cores.

Tabular comparison

FX-8150 FX-8320 FX 8320E FX-8350 FX8370 FX8370E
Codename Vishera Vishera Vishera Vishera Vishera Vishera
Stepping C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0
Production 32 nm 32 nm 32 nm 32 nm 32 nm 32 nm
Modules / cores 4/8 4/8 4/8 4/8 4/8 4/8
Clock / turbo 3,6 / 4,2 GHz 3,5 / 4,0 GHz 3,2 / 4,0 GHz 4,0 / 4,2 GHz 4,0 / 4,3 GHz 3,3 / 4,3 GHz
L2 cache 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB 8 MB 8 MB 8 MB 8 MB
TDP 125 Watt 125 Watt 95 Watt 125 Watt 125 Watt 95 Watt
Storage support DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866
Multiplier free ja ja ja ja ja ja
Befehlssätz to SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI
Street price ~ 190 euros ~ 130 euros ~ 140 euros ~ 150 euros ~ 190 euros ~ 170 euros

In the middle class, the FX-8150 and FX-8350 are practically yesterday's news, but both are still available in stores. The actual offers are represented today by the models FX-8320 and FX-8370 and their E versions.

The nomenclatures are again not always conclusive, because an FX-8320 (E) offers less clock rate than, for example, an FX-8150 and should theoretically not have a higher number. With the FX-8370 (E) you can at least outperform an FX-8350 in terms of turbo clock.

TDP and price as weapons

Over the past few years, since the introduction of the FX-8000 models, it seems to have become clear that you can no longer win a flower pot with high GHz clock speeds alone. Especially if the high clock rates in your own architecture are clearly inferior to the lower clock rates of the competition. And so the new motto is quite obvious: less is more!

And in fact, AMD is currently losing less with the E variants than it is winning. The lower clock rates are not clearly noticeable in the performance, because the turbo clock often bridges here. At the same time, however, you can now name the lower TDP class of 95 watts.

If you look at the market in the area of ​​the FX-8000 series and the AM3 + socket, the FX-8320 (E) in German-speaking countries is probably the cheapest option to get started here. The current staggering also shows the low margins with which the manufacturer has to act here. Often individual models are simply separated by only 10 euros - outliers in our table can be explained by discontinued models in sales or fluctuating exchange rates.

We do not know how much AMD still has to select a good three years after the introduction of the FX-8000 processors in order to receive E and non-E models. But the production should really be mature enough by now that enough high-quality models can be captured, which can be operated with lower voltages in order to be sold as e-models. In this area - with four modules - the 65-watt class remains simply utopian.

Practice

overclocking

Despite the goal of being able to achieve a lower TDP, AMD also offers this FX processor without a multiplier blockade, and of course the end customer is free - at their own risk - to tease out the maximum performance from the CPU. This is also relatively easy using the free multiplier. However, you have to struggle with a few restrictions.

If you play on the CPU's multiplier, the processor's idle rate is no longer lowered as much as it would without manual intervention. This is of course counterproductive when it comes to energy efficiency. When it comes to bare clock rates and performance at the lowest possible price, deactivating the power-saving mechanisms and increasing the voltage in overclocking can even have an effect on an FX-8000 model. After that you don't have any savings in terms of power consumption, but you can get the maximum performance from the CPU squeeze out.

In our test, however, we do not want to deal with the intricacies of overclocking FX processors, so that we do not resort to means such as water cooling or additional voltage increases. Instead, we use our usual air cooling and just turn the clock up above the multiplier.

Picture: AMD FX-8320E in the test
We were able to increase the clock rate by a further 600 MHz at the base clock rate before the chip lost its stability. This shows that there is definitely potential in the FX-8320E, but again it is not really a surprise compared to the regular FX-8320.

With the increase in clock speed, the power consumption also increases and reaches a value of over 196 watts. Compared to the previously measured 150 watts, this is a significant increase. The increase in clock speed also ensures that values ​​were around 20 watts higher in idle mode.

Performance index [OC]

Games [dGPU]

Performance index
Games
FX-8320E @ 3,8 GHz

107
AMD FX-8320E

100
percent
Show / hide benchmark overview

The increased performance is quite impressive, because the average across all benchmarks is around seven percent. Here everyone has to decide for themselves whether they want to accept the declared disadvantages.

But the means of the benchmarks is of course not the panacea for everyone. As our breakdown shows, the differences lie in the details and so the overclocking measure can hardly bear fruit in one case, but it may increase by up to 18 percent in another. This means of our tool makes it easier to judge personally where one applies one's own standards - including all possible negative consequences.

Direct comparison

Choice of products



    AMD FX-8320E FX-8320E @ 3,8 GHz
    Assassins Creed III
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    58,1 60,2 (+3,8%)
    Assassins Creed III
    1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF]
    40,6 43,5 (+7,3%)
    Crysis 3
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    93,3 98,7 (+5,7%)
    Crysis 3
    1680 x 1050 [FXAA / 16xAF]
    66,3 71,1 (+7,2%)
    Serious Sam 3
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    53,1 56,6 (+6,5%)
    Serious Sam 3
    1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF]
    43,8 46,8 (+6,8%)
    TES V: Skyrim
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    55,5 60,2 (+8,6%)
    TES V: Skyrim
    1680 x 1050 [4xAA / 16xAF]
    40,4 44,3 (+9,5%)
    tomb raider
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    69,5 74,0 (+6,6%)
    tomb raider
    1680 x 1050 [Post AA / 16xAF]
    40,6 43,4 (+7,1%)
    Euler3D benchmark
    Score [points (higher values ​​are better)]
    3,7 4,3 (+16,7%)
    Euler3D benchmark
    Time [seconds (smaller values ​​are better)]
    54,2 46,5 (-14,3%)
    PCMark05
    CPU suite [points [more is better]]
    9 494,0 9 (+4,7%)
    PCMark05
    Memory suite [points [more is better]]
    7 294,0 7 (-0,1%)
    PCMark 7
    Computation Suite [points [more is better]]
    6 263,0 6 (+2,7%)
    GIMP
    Image processing of a 70 MPixel image [seconds [less is better]]
    38,0 37,0 (+2,7%)
    IrfanView
    Image processing [seconds [less is better]]
    19,3 18,4 (+4,9%)
    ITunes
    Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]]
    70,8 70,3 (+0,6%)
    Lame
    Wave to MP3 conversion (created with VisualStudio) [seconds [less is better]]
    81,4 80,7 (+0,8%)
    Nero AAC encoder
    Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]]
    63,6 61,1 (+4,0%)
    OggEnc
    Wave to OggVorbis conversion [seconds [less is better]]
    63,6 61,7 (+3,1%)
    x264 encoder
    Time [seconds [less is better]]
    46,8 40,0 (+16,8%)
    x264 encoder
    Pass 1 [frames per second [more is better]]
    137,2 127,2 (+7,9%)
    x264 encoder
    Pass 2 [frames per second [more is better]]
    40,6 37,8 (+7,5%)
    Handbrake x264
    Preset: iPod 320 × 176 [seconds [less is better]]
    25,8 23,3 (+10,6%)
    Handbrake x264
    Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080 [seconds [less is better]]
    221,8 188,6 (+17,6%)
    Blender
    FlyingSquirrel [seconds [less is better]]
    38,1 35,9 (+5,8%)
    POV-Ray 3.7
    Rendering [seconds [less is better]]
    215,8 183,0 (+17,9%)
    Cinebench
    CPU - all cores [points [more is better]]
    5,54 6,57 (+18,6%)
    7 Zip
    without AES [seconds [less is better]]
    70,8 68,0 (+4,2%)
    7 Zip
    with AES [seconds [less is better]]
    71,0 68,0 (+4,5%)
    WinRAR
    highest compression rate [seconds [less is better]]
    25,5 -
    WinZip
    Encryption: None [seconds [less is better]]
    62,8 61,1 (+2,8%)
    WinZip
    Encryption: AES 256 bit [seconds [less is better]]
    62,8 61,1 (+2,7%)
    TrueCrypt
    [AES] [MByte / s [more is better]]
    3 000,0 3 (+16,7%)
    TrueCrypt
    [Serpent] [MByte / s [more is better]]
    349,0 382,0 (+9,5%)
    TrueCrypt
    [Twofish] [MByte / s [more is better]]
    566,0 672,0 (+18,7%)

    Practice: power consumption

    In the following, we determine the average consumption of the entire system without a monitor. A standard energy cost meter is used here, in our case an Energy Check 300. Over a period of 20 minutes, we record the course and, of course, state the average value in watts. We use Core2MaxPerf for all processors as a full load scenario.

    It remains clear that this measurement of the entire system cannot, of course, be as accurate as previous measurements on our part, in which we only reduced the CPU load and power consumption with special mainboard modifications. Unfortunately, everything flows into such measurements. Sudden spikes caused by hard disk access, programs starting in the background that request higher CPU loads, or similar scenarios. One can only try at this point to exclude all evildoers. But it can never succeed in the end, and so the following diagrams are only indicative - always based on our selected test system!

    input

    Idle

    Intel Core i7-3960X

    85
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    81
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    66
    AMD FX-8350

    59
    AMD FX-8370E

    58
    AMD FX-8320E

    58
    AMD FX-8150

    57
    AMD A10-6800K

    39
    AMD A10-7850K

    38
    AMD A10-7800

    38
    AMD A8-7600

    37
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    33
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    33
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    33
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    33
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    33
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    33
    Intel Core i3-2120

    31
    Intel Celeron G1620

    30
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    30
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    30
    AMD A10-6700

    30
    Intel Core i3-3220

    30
    Intel Core i5-2300

    30
    Intel Core i5-2400

    30
    AMD A8-6500T

    30
    Watt

    Based on our explanations, two circumstances clearly stand out in idle mode. On the one hand, the FX-8000 models are basically on the same level, but unfortunately none of the candidates can really score compared to the ranking. The next smaller level are the AMD APUs, which also work in roughly the same segment. Another fundamental limitation of such a consideration of the overall system is the selected components, such as the mainboard or the power supply.

    However, the clear lead of Intel offshoots, which operate on different motherboards to AMD, but are also equipped with identical components such as power supply unit, hard drive and so on, cannot be disputed.

    And so the Intel processors are clearly ahead in this comparison.

    input

    Last

    Intel Core i7-3960X

    236
    AMD FX-8350

    199
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    196
    AMD FX-8150

    173
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    172
    AMD FX-8320E

    148
    AMD FX-8370E

    141
    AMD A10-7850K

    126
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    115
    AMD A10-6800K

    114
    AMD A8-7600

    113
    AMD A10-7800

    103
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    96
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    96
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    95
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    90
    Intel Core i5-2400

    90
    AMD A10-6700

    87
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    84
    Intel Core i5-2300

    81
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    80
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    75
    AMD A8-6500T

    73
    Intel Core i3-2120

    57
    Intel Core i3-3220

    48
    Intel Celeron G1620

    39
    Watt

    A look at the load scenario clearly shows that AMD is right to separate the 125-watt TDP class from the 95-watt class. The measurements of the total system power consumption show a difference in the range of 30 watts, in some cases even more. It's nice to see, but unfortunately it's still a bit too high. After all, over 30 watts separate this mid-range AMD CPU from Intel's Socket 1150 top model i7-4790K.

    In principle, this only gives a rough indication, because at this point the dependency of the load tool is also decisive. This tendency is evident in the tool we have chosen. Intel's top model i7-4790K operates with a TDP of 88 watts, AMD's mid-range model operates with a TDP of 95 watts - roughly the same region. How much leeway the two different CPU models have for maximum TDP under typical load scenarios is unfortunately unclear. It seems that the AMD models are approaching their limits faster here.

    And so in the end there is only one look at the benchmarks, which have to clarify where exactly which CPU is.

    Benchmarks: Synthetic

    PCMark 05

    Information on the benchmark

    Information on the benchmarkAs the name suggests, PCMark 05 dates from 2005 and is therefore already several years under its belt. Nevertheless, the benchmark suite from the Finnish company Futuremark is still very well suited to classifying the computing power of processors and their memory performance. We only use the CPU and memory suite, so that conclusions can only be drawn for these components. The CPU suite is based on eight different tests from the fields of packing / unpacking, encryption, and audio and video processing, and thus allows an overview of the everyday performance of the processors. The CPU suite benefits equally from high clock frequencies and from multiple cores. In the memory suite that is also used, however, factors such as cache rate, cache size and memory bandwidth play a role, since the tests essentially consist of reading, copying and writing data of different sizes to the memory.

    PCMark05

    CPU suite

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    16499,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    14607,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    14361,33
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    13926,66
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    13870,66
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    13592,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    13247,00
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    13120,00
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    12709,66
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    12384,66
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    12214,33
    Intel Core i5-2400

    11534,33
    AMD A10-7850K

    11064,00
    AMD FX-8350

    10752,00
    AMD A10-7800

    10740,00
    AMD A10-6800K

    10667,00
    AMD A8-7600

    10517,00
    Intel Core i5-2300

    10487,67
    AMD A10-6700

    10418,00
    Intel Core i3-3220

    10348,00
    AMD FX-8370E

    9941,00
    Intel Core i3-2120

    9901,00
    AMD FX-8150

    9703,00
    AMD FX-8320E

    9494,00
    Intel Celeron G1620

    7895,50
    AMD A8-6500T

    6933,00
    Points [more is better]
    PCMark05

    Memory suite

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    13621,00
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    12733,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    12672,33
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    11537,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    11414,33
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    10731,00
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    10475,33
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    10342,00
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    9717,33
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    9492,66
    Intel Core i3-3220

    8854,00
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    8447,33
    Intel Core i5-2400

    8040,00
    Intel Core i3-2120

    7780,00
    AMD FX-8350

    7654,00
    AMD FX-8370E

    7583,00
    Intel Core i5-2300

    7564,33
    AMD FX-8320E

    7294,00
    AMD FX-8150

    7234,00
    Intel Celeron G1620

    7080,50
    AMD A10-6700

    6540,00
    AMD A10-6800K

    6488,00
    AMD A10-7850K

    6222,00
    AMD A10-7800

    6088,00
    AMD A8-7600

    5892,00
    AMD A8-6500T

    5117,00
    Points [more is better]

    PCMark 7

    Information on the benchmark

    Information on the benchmarkPCMark 7 was only launched this year and represents the latest system benchmark from Futuremark. We only use the Computation Suite to draw conclusions about the computing power of the processors tested. The suite comprises three different tests from the fields of video transcoding and image processing. It allows you to see the everyday performance of the processors. In addition to a high clock rate, the tests benefit from multiple cores.

    PCMark 7

    Computation suite

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    8679,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    8401,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    8091,67
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    8077,00
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    7937,33
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    7739,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    7602,33
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    7486,33
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    7479,67
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    7293,33
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    6979,00
    AMD A10-7850K

    6747,00
    Intel Core i5-2400

    6703,67
    AMD FX-8350

    6701,00
    AMD A10-7800

    6652,00
    AMD A10-6800K

    6606,00
    AMD A8-7600

    6500,00
    Intel Core i5-2300

    6403,00
    AMD FX-8370E

    6387,00
    Intel Core i3-3220

    6373,00
    AMD FX-8320E

    6263,00
    AMD A10-6700

    6244,00
    AMD FX-8150

    6156,00
    Intel Core i3-2120

    6008,00
    Intel Celeron G1620

    5234,00
    AMD A8-6500T

    4921,00
    Points [more is better]

    Euler3d benchmark

    Essentially, it is a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) application that simulates the flow around and in a certain object. For such applications it is quite common that large caches and many CPU cores can result in a significant increase in performance. More information on the Euler3d benchmark Is there ... here.

    PCMark 7

    Computation suite

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    8679,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    8401,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    8091,67
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    8077,00
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    7937,33
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    7739,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    7602,33
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    7486,33
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    7479,67
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    7293,33
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    6979,00
    AMD A10-7850K

    6747,00
    Intel Core i5-2400

    6703,67
    AMD FX-8350

    6701,00
    AMD A10-7800

    6652,00
    AMD A10-6800K

    6606,00
    AMD A8-7600

    6500,00
    Intel Core i5-2300

    6403,00
    AMD FX-8370E

    6387,00
    Intel Core i3-3220

    6373,00
    AMD FX-8320E

    6263,00
    AMD A10-6700

    6244,00
    AMD FX-8150

    6156,00
    Intel Core i3-2120

    6008,00
    Intel Celeron G1620

    5234,00
    AMD A8-6500T

    4921,00
    Points [more is better]
    Euler3D benchmark

    time

    AMD A8-6500T

    132,49
    AMD A8-7600

    100,10
    AMD A10-7800

    97,50
    AMD A10-7850K

    94,50
    Intel Celeron G1620

    92,11
    AMD A10-6700

    89,82
    AMD A10-6800K

    87,86
    Intel Core i3-2120

    76,85
    Intel Core i3-3220

    69,81
    AMD FX-8150

    54,41
    AMD FX-8320E

    54,21
    Intel Core i5-2300

    53,39
    Intel Core i5-2400

    50,78
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    49,30
    AMD FX-8350

    45,65
    AMD FX-8370E

    45,65
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    42,66
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    42,29
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    41,79
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    38,22
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    36,55
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    33,82
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    31,08
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    7,72
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    7,27
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    6,77
    Seconds (smaller values ​​are better)

    Benchmarks: Audio Editing

    Now we come to the “correct” everyday applications. We want to start with music editing software. All tests are based on a wave file of around 710 MB, which we convert to MP3 files with the help of iTunes, LAME and the Nero AAC encoder. A conversion to the Ogg Vorbis format is also used. All programs are strictly single-threaded, so they only make use of one core.

    iTunes

    Information on the benchmark

    iTunes is a multimedia program from Apple that allows you to play, convert, organize and buy all kinds of music. The first version of the very successful software came on the market in 2001. There is now the ninth revision. We are currently using this with version number 9.1.2.5. However, this version does not yet make use of multi-core processors either. The SSE units are used very often for this.

    ITunes

    Wave to MP3 conversion

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    39
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    43
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    44
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    44
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    46
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    47
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    49
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    50
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    50
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    50
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    52
    Intel Core i3-3220

    52
    Intel Core i5-2400

    54
    Intel Core i3-2120

    55
    Intel Core i5-2300

    59
    Intel Celeron G1620

    64
    AMD A10-6700

    65
    AMD A10-6800K

    65
    AMD FX-8350

    66
    AMD FX-8370E

    69
    AMD FX-8320E

    71
    AMD A10-7850K

    71
    AMD A10-7800

    72
    AMD A8-7600

    75
    AMD FX-8150

    82
    AMD A8-6500T

    92
    Seconds [less is better]

    Nero AAC

    Information on the benchmark

    The Nero AAC encoder is a freely available encoder that is called from the command line and is used in Nero 10, for example. We are using the latest version 1.5.1, which, like iTunes, is not yet multithreaded. High-performance SSE units are therefore the most important criterion for high performance.

    Nero AAC encoder

    Wave to MP3 conversion

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    35
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    40
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    40
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    41
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    41
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    41
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    43
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    44
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    45
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    46
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    46
    Intel Core i3-3220

    48
    Intel Core i5-2400

    50
    Intel Core i3-2120

    51
    Intel Core i5-2300

    55
    AMD A10-6800K

    57
    Intel Celeron G1620

    58
    AMD A10-6700

    59
    AMD FX-8350

    60
    AMD A10-7850K

    61
    AMD FX-8370E

    61
    AMD A10-7800

    63
    AMD FX-8150

    63
    AMD FX-8320E

    64
    AMD A8-7600

    64
    AMD A8-6500T

    83
    Seconds [less is better]

    LAME

    Information on the benchmark

    LAME is an open source encoder for converting audio files into MP3 format. The big difference to the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft's MP3 encoder is that LAME is free. This is why LAME is also used in a large number of software products. We are using the latest version 3.98.4 from March 2010, which does not yet support multi-threading. However, we do not use the fully compiled package but only the source code and create our own program package with the help of VisualStudio 2008 and the integrated C ++ compiler from Microsoft. Normally, however, LAME uses an Intel compiler. In order to avoid any differences, we have created our own version.

    ITunes

    Wave to MP3 conversion

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    39
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    43
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    44
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    44
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    46
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    47
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    49
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    50
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    50
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    50
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    52
    Intel Core i3-3220

    52
    Intel Core i5-2400

    54
    Intel Core i3-2120

    55
    Intel Core i5-2300

    59
    Intel Celeron G1620

    64
    AMD A10-6700

    65
    AMD A10-6800K

    65
    AMD FX-8350

    66
    AMD FX-8370E

    69
    AMD FX-8320E

    71
    AMD A10-7850K

    71
    AMD A10-7800

    72
    AMD A8-7600

    75
    AMD FX-8150

    82
    AMD A8-6500T

    92
    Seconds [less is better]

    OggEnc

    Information on the benchmark

    OggEnc is again a free audio encoder. It converts audio files into the Ogg container format. The structure and structure of Ogg are similar to the MPEG-4 file format MP4. We use version 2.87 of OggEnc and, like the other three programs mentioned, does not support multi-threading.

    OggEnc

    Wave to OggVorbis conversion

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    29
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    33
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    33
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    35
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    36
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    36
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    36
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    37
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    37
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    38
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    39
    Intel Core i3-3220

    40
    Intel Core i5-2400

    41
    Intel Core i3-2120

    42
    Intel Core i5-2300

    46
    Intel Celeron G1620

    50
    AMD A10-7850K

    54
    AMD A10-7800

    55
    AMD FX-8350

    55
    AMD A10-6700

    57
    AMD A8-7600

    57
    AMD A10-6800K

    57
    AMD FX-8370E

    59
    AMD FX-8320E

    64
    AMD FX-8150

    65
    AMD A8-6500T

    81
    Seconds [less is better]

    Benchmarks: image editing

    When it comes to image processing, we rely on the free programs GIMP and IrfanView. Both programs make very weak use of multiple cores, but are more likely to be classified as single-threaded.

    GIMP

    After we recently examined AMD's new FX-8370E processor, today we take a look at the FX-8320E, which is located in the middle of the AMD desktop processors. 8 cores, each with a clock rate of 3,2 GHz, turbo mode, but also a lower TDP of 95 watts are the key data. However, this processor is available for prices starting at 140 euros. Our test explains how the FX-8320E performs in practice.

    Intro

    AMD tries to squeeze as much performance as possible out of the Vishera processors so that you don't lose touch with Intel in the performance segment. While the APUs (CPU and graphics unit combined) are generally well positioned, they lag behind the competition in the actual processor business. AMD's high-end models of the FX series are a prime example of the approach mentioned. With the FX-9000 models, the maximum possible performance was teased out of the architecture. However, this is at the expense of the power consumption and leads to a TDP of 220 watts. A value that Intel does not achieve even on the LGA 2011 socket. With lower TDPs, AMD takes account of the accusation of excessive power consumption and only recently put the FX-8370E into the race. Now we have the FX-8320E, which also only joins the 95 watt class and tries to re-represent the midfield among AMD's desktop processors.

    AMD's motto: You can build high-performance PCs at low prices, and advertise primarily with the eight processor cores, from which very well parallelized software can benefit massively. In addition, the 8320E has a base clock of 3,2 GHz and a turbo clock of around 4 GHz. For comparison: the non-E version clocks at 3,5 GHz in the basic clock and also 4 GHz in turbo mode.

    On the following pages we clarify where the FX-8320E is to be classified, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the relatively inexpensive CPU.

    Test environment

    Hardware: Intel systems

    Intel socket LGA-1150

    • Intel Core i7-4790K:
      Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 4,0 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • Intel Core i7-4770:
      Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • Intel Core i5-4670K:
      Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • Intel Core i5-4670:
      Haswell architecture, C0 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600

    The new Haswell processors are operated on the MSI mainboard Z87-G43. We imported the latest beta BIOS V1.2B1 and activated all energy-saving mechanisms in the BIOS. The memory modules used come from G.Skill. It is a 4 x 4 GByte kit of the Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 with the latencies CL9-9-9-24.

     

     

     

     

    Intel socket LGA-1155

    • Core i7 3770K:
      IB architecture, E1 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • Intel Core i5-3570K:
      IB architecture, E1 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • Intel Core i7-2700K:
      Self-service architecture, D2 stepping, 3,5 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • Core i7 2600K:
      Self-service architecture, D2 stepping, 3,4 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • Core i5 2500K:
      SB architecture, D2 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 cores, turbo mode active, 4 x DDR3-1333

    For Intel's “Sandy Bridge” and “Ivy Bridge” processors for the LGA-1155 socket, 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 are used, operated on DDR3-1333. The memories are operated with the CL9-9-9-24 2T latencies. That comes as a mainboard MSI Z77A-GD65* used with BIOS version 7751vP0. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.

     

     

    MSI Z87-G43

    Intel socket LGA-2011 and LGA-2011-3

    • Core i7-5960X
      R2 stepping, 3,0 GHz, 8 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR4-2133
    • Core i7-4960X
      S1 stepping, 3,6 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • Core i7-3960X
      C2 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 6 cores, turbo mode active, HTT active, 4 x DDR3-1600

    For the processors of the LGA-2011 socket, 4 x 4 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600 and an ASUS Rampage IV Gene with BIOS 4901 are used. The socket LGA-2011-3 is measured with 4 x 4 GByte Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666, operated with DDR4-2133 and timings of 15-15-15-36. An MSI X99S Gaming 7 with BIOS V17.4 is used as the mainboard.

     

     

     

    Hardware: AMD systems

    AMD Socket FM2 +

    • A10-7850K
      Steamroller architecture, A1 stepping, 3,7 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • A8-7600
      Steamroller architecture, A1 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • A10-6800K
      Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 4,1 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • A10-6700
      Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 3,7 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • A10-6500T
      Piledriver architecture, A1 stepping, 2,1 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600

    The processors for FM2 and FM2 + were measured on the MSI A85XA-G65. The Kaveri models and the A10-6800K also on the MSI A88XM-E45.

    AMD Socket AM3 +

    • FX-8370E:
      Piledriver architecture, C0 stepping, 3,3 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • FX-8350:
      Piledriver architecture, C0 stepping, 4,0 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600
    • FX-8150:
      Bulldozer architecture, B2 stepping, 3,6 GHz, 4 modules, turbo mode active, CMT active, 4 x DDR3-1600

    The same G.Skill modules are used for AMD's Bulldozer processors for the AM3 + socket as on the Intel systems. That comes as a mainboard ASUS Crosshair V Formula* (990FX chipset) used with BIOS 1703. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.

     

     

    ASUS Sabertooth 990FX

    Due to the lack of support for the new processor from our test board ASUS Crosshair V Formula, we had to change the board. The measurement results for the AM3 + socket were therefore completely created on the new ASUS Sabertooth 990FX.

    AMD Socket FM2

    • A10-5800K
      Trinity architecture, A1 stepping, 3,8 GHz, 4 cores, 4 x DDR3-1600

    The G.Skill DDR3 memory mentioned above works here as well. The Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 with BIOS F4 is used as the mainboard. All energy saving mechanisms are activated in the BIOS.

    More hardware

    Graphic card:

    • MSI Radeon HD 7970 Lightning
    • AMD Radeon HD 3450 (DDR3):
      only for measurements of power consumption

    Memory:

    • 16 GByte (4 x 4 GB) G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1600
      SPD operation: DDR3-1600, 9-9-9-24 at 1,5 volts

     

     

     

    Power adapter:

    • be quiet! DARK POWER 550W R10

    Hard disk:

    • Seagate ST2000VX000

    Cooler:

     

     

     

    Measurement:

    Software and benchmarks

    Operating system and driver

    CPU benchmarks

      SiSoft Sandra 2013.05.19.44

    Overall, we tried to focus strongly on real applications with the benchmarks and to distance ourselves from synthetic tests. Whenever possible, we also used the 64-bit version.

    A special remark should be made about LAME: By default, LAME is created with an Intel C ++ compiler. In the past, this has repeatedly caused irritation, which is why we also use a version in our new benchmark course that we created ourselves with the help of Visual Studio 2010 from Microsoft. In terms of performance, however, it does no difference.

    Other tools

    Test methodology

    Apart from the remarks already made on this and on the previous page regarding our test philosophy, we want to briefly summarize the essential points again. Unless otherwise stated in the direct test description, the following points always apply:

    • All available energy saving mechanisms are activated.
    • If the CPU has a turbo mode, this is activated.
    • If the CPU supports hyperthreading / core multithreading (CMT), this is activated.
    • If not mentioned otherwise, always comes MSI Radeon HD 7970 Lightning for use.

    Technique

    The new FX-8320E

    In the technical sector there is of course nothing new to report today. The technical implementation is basically the same as it was when the Bulldozer in late 2011 by AMD, of course including the advantages of the current Piledriver cores.

    AMD's current innovations - shown with the FX-8370E, as now also with the FX-8320E - are more of a “cosmetic” nature. The manufacturer simply reacts to the allegations that the AMD CPUs in the middle class segment are too power hungry and thus tries to present a more attractive TDP class. The two new E-models are therefore in the 95-watt TDP range and no longer in the 125-watt class, like the 8370 and 8320.

     

     

     

    The implementation takes place in simple steps, namely in the form of clock and voltage lowering - presumably also the DIE selection. The FX-8320E only has a base clock of 3,2 instead of 3,5 GHz. In turbo mode, however, it still clocks up 4 GHz, just like the previous FX-8320.

    In addition, the FX-8000 series remains with models with four modules, whereby each of the modules can handle two threads and AMD therefore speaks of eight CPU cores.

    Tabular comparison

    FX-8150 FX-8320 FX 8320E FX-8350 FX8370 FX8370E
    Codename Vishera Vishera Vishera Vishera Vishera Vishera
    Stepping C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0
    Production 32 nm 32 nm 32 nm 32 nm 32 nm 32 nm
    Modules / cores 4/8 4/8 4/8 4/8 4/8 4/8
    Clock / turbo 3,6 / 4,2 GHz 3,5 / 4,0 GHz 3,2 / 4,0 GHz 4,0 / 4,2 GHz 4,0 / 4,3 GHz 3,3 / 4,3 GHz
    L2 cache 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB 4 x 2 MB
    L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB 8 MB 8 MB 8 MB 8 MB
    TDP 125 Watt 125 Watt 95 Watt 125 Watt 125 Watt 95 Watt
    Storage support DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866 DDR3-1866
    Multiplier free ja ja ja ja ja ja
    Befehlssätz to SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI SSE4.1, SSE 4.2, AVX, AES-NI
    Street price ~ 190 euros ~ 130 euros ~ 140 euros ~ 150 euros ~ 190 euros ~ 170 euros

    In the middle class, the FX-8150 and FX-8350 are practically yesterday's news, but both are still available in stores. The actual offers are represented today by the models FX-8320 and FX-8370 and their E versions.

    The nomenclatures are again not always conclusive, because an FX-8320 (E) offers less clock rate than, for example, an FX-8150 and should theoretically not have a higher number. With the FX-8370 (E) you can at least outperform an FX-8350 in terms of turbo clock.

    TDP and price as weapons

    Over the past few years, since the introduction of the FX-8000 models, it seems to have become clear that you can no longer win a flower pot with high GHz clock speeds alone. Especially if the high clock rates in your own architecture are clearly inferior to the lower clock rates of the competition. And so the new motto is quite obvious: less is more!

    And in fact, AMD is currently losing less with the E variants than it is winning. The lower clock rates are not clearly noticeable in the performance, because the turbo clock often bridges here. At the same time, however, you can now name the lower TDP class of 95 watts.

     

     

     

    If you look at the market in the area of ​​the FX-8000 series and the AM3 + socket, the FX-8320 (E) in German-speaking countries is probably the cheapest option to get started here. The current staggering also shows the low margins with which the manufacturer has to act here. Often individual models are simply separated by only 10 euros - outliers in our table can be explained by discontinued models in sales or fluctuating exchange rates.

    We do not know how much AMD still has to select a good three years after the introduction of the FX-8000 processors in order to receive E and non-E models. But the production should really be mature enough by now that enough high-quality models can be captured, which can be operated with lower voltages in order to be sold as e-models. In this area - with four modules - the 65-watt class remains simply utopian.

    Practice

    overclocking

    Despite the goal of being able to achieve a lower TDP, AMD also offers this FX processor without a multiplier blockade, and of course the end customer is free - at their own risk - to tease out the maximum performance from the CPU. This is also relatively easy using the free multiplier. However, you have to struggle with a few restrictions.

    If you play on the CPU's multiplier, the processor's idle rate is no longer lowered as much as it would without manual intervention. This is of course counterproductive when it comes to energy efficiency. When it comes to bare clock rates and performance at the lowest possible price, deactivating the power-saving mechanisms and increasing the voltage in overclocking can even have an effect on an FX-8000 model. After that you don't have any savings in terms of power consumption, but you can get the maximum performance from the CPU squeeze out.

    In our test, however, we do not want to deal with the intricacies of overclocking FX processors, so that we do not resort to means such as water cooling or additional voltage increases. Instead, we use our usual air cooling and just turn the clock up above the multiplier.

    Picture: AMD FX-8320E in the test

    We were able to increase the clock rate by a further 600 MHz at the base clock rate before the chip lost its stability. This shows that there is definitely potential in the FX-8320E, but again it is not really a surprise compared to the regular FX-8320.

    With the increase in clock speed, the power consumption also increases and reaches a value of over 196 watts. Compared to the previously measured 150 watts, this is a significant increase. The increase in clock speed also ensures that values ​​were around 20 watts higher in idle mode.

    Performance index [OC]

    Games [dGPU]

    Performance index
    Games
    FX-8320E @ 3,8 GHz
    107
    AMD FX-8320E
    100
    percent
    Show / hide benchmark overview

    The increased performance is quite impressive, because the average across all benchmarks is around seven percent. Here everyone has to decide for themselves whether they want to accept the declared disadvantages.

    But the means of the benchmarks is of course not the panacea for everyone. As our breakdown shows, the differences lie in the details and so the overclocking measure can hardly bear fruit in one case, but it may increase by up to 18 percent in another. This means of our tool makes it easier to judge personally where one applies one's own standards - including all possible negative consequences.

    Direct comparison

    Choice of products

    AMD FX-8320E FX-8320E @ 3,8 GHz
    Assassins Creed III
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    58,1 60,2 (+3,8%)
    Assassins Creed III
    1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF]
    40,6 43,5 (+7,3%)
    Crysis 3
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    93,3 98,7 (+5,7%)
    Crysis 3
    1680 x 1050 [FXAA / 16xAF]
    66,3 71,1 (+7,2%)
    Serious Sam 3
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    53,1 56,6 (+6,5%)
    Serious Sam 3
    1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF]
    43,8 46,8 (+6,8%)
    TES V: Skyrim
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    55,5 60,2 (+8,6%)
    TES V: Skyrim
    1680 x 1050 [4xAA / 16xAF]
    40,4 44,3 (+9,5%)
    tomb raider
    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
    69,5 74,0 (+6,6%)
    tomb raider
    1680 x 1050 [Post AA / 16xAF]
    40,6 43,4 (+7,1%)
    Euler3D benchmark
    Score [points (higher values ​​are better)]
    3,7 4,3 (+16,7%)
    Euler3D benchmark
    Time [seconds (smaller values ​​are better)]
    54,2 46,5 (-14,3%)
    PCMark05
    CPU suite [points [more is better]]
    9 494,0 9 (+4,7%)
    PCMark05
    Memory suite [points [more is better]]
    7 294,0 7 (-0,1%)
    PCMark 7
    Computation Suite [points [more is better]]
    6 263,0 6 (+2,7%)
    GIMP
    Image processing of a 70 MPixel image [seconds [less is better]]
    38,0 37,0 (+2,7%)
    IrfanView
    Image processing [seconds [less is better]]
    19,3 18,4 (+4,9%)
    ITunes
    Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]]
    70,8 70,3 (+0,6%)
    Lame
    Wave to MP3 conversion (created with VisualStudio) [seconds [less is better]]
    81,4 80,7 (+0,8%)
    Nero AAC encoder
    Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]]
    63,6 61,1 (+4,0%)
    OggEnc
    Wave to OggVorbis conversion [seconds [less is better]]
    63,6 61,7 (+3,1%)
    x264 encoder
    Time [seconds [less is better]]
    46,8 40,0 (+16,8%)
    x264 encoder
    Pass 1 [frames per second [more is better]]
    137,2 127,2 (+7,9%)
    x264 encoder
    Pass 2 [frames per second [more is better]]
    40,6 37,8 (+7,5%)
    Handbrake x264
    Preset: iPod 320 × 176 [seconds [less is better]]
    25,8 23,3 (+10,6%)
    Handbrake x264
    Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080 [seconds [less is better]]
    221,8 188,6 (+17,6%)
    Blender
    FlyingSquirrel [seconds [less is better]]
    38,1 35,9 (+5,8%)
    POV-Ray 3.7
    Rendering [seconds [less is better]]
    215,8 183,0 (+17,9%)
    Cinebench
    CPU - all cores [points [more is better]]
    5,54 6,57 (+18,6%)
    7 Zip
    without AES [seconds [less is better]]
    70,8 68,0 (+4,2%)
    7 Zip
    with AES [seconds [less is better]]
    71,0 68,0 (+4,5%)
    WinRAR
    highest compression rate [seconds [less is better]]
    25,5 -
    WinZip
    Encryption: None [seconds [less is better]]
    62,8 61,1 (+2,8%)
    WinZip
    Encryption: AES 256 bit [seconds [less is better]]
    62,8 61,1 (+2,7%)
    TrueCrypt
    [AES] [MByte / s [more is better]]
    3 000,0 3 (+16,7%)
    TrueCrypt
    [Serpent] [MByte / s [more is better]]
    349,0 382,0 (+9,5%)
    TrueCrypt
    [Twofish] [MByte / s [more is better]]
    566,0 672,0 (+18,7%)

    Practice: power consumption

    In the following, we determine the average consumption of the entire system without a monitor. A standard energy cost meter is used here, in our case an Energy Check 300. Over a period of 20 minutes, we record the course and, of course, state the average value in watts. We use Core2MaxPerf for all processors as a full load scenario.

    It remains clear that this measurement of the entire system cannot, of course, be as accurate as previous measurements on our part, in which we only reduced the CPU load and power consumption with special mainboard modifications. Unfortunately, everything flows into such measurements. Sudden spikes caused by hard disk access, programs starting in the background that request higher CPU loads, or similar scenarios. One can only try at this point to exclude all evildoers. But it can never succeed in the end, and so the following diagrams are only indicative - always based on our selected test system!

    input

    Idle

    Intel Core i7-3960X
    85
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    81
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    66
    AMD FX-8350
    59
    AMD FX-8370E
    58
    AMD FX-8320E
    58
    AMD FX-8150
    57
    AMD A10-6800K
    39
    AMD A10-7850K
    38
    AMD A10-7800
    38
    AMD A8-7600
    37
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    33
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    33
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    33
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    33
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    33
    Intel Core i7-4790K
    33
    Intel Core i3-2120
    31
    Intel Celeron G1620
    30
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    30
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    30
    AMD A10-6700
    30
    Intel Core i3-3220
    30
    Intel Core i5-2300
    30
    Intel Core i5-2400
    30
    AMD A8-6500T
    30
    Watt

    Based on our explanations, two circumstances clearly stand out in idle mode. On the one hand, the FX-8000 models are basically on the same level, but unfortunately none of the candidates can really score compared to the ranking. The next smaller level are the AMD APUs, which also work in roughly the same segment. Another fundamental limitation of such a consideration of the overall system is the selected components, such as the mainboard or the power supply.

    However, the clear lead of Intel offshoots, which operate on different motherboards to AMD, but are also equipped with identical components such as power supply unit, hard drive and so on, cannot be disputed.

    And so the Intel processors are clearly ahead in this comparison.

    input

    Last

    Intel Core i7-3960X
    236
    AMD FX-8350
    199
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    196
    AMD FX-8150
    173
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    172
    AMD FX-8320E
    148
    AMD FX-8370E
    141
    AMD A10-7850K
    126
    Intel Core i7-4790K
    115
    AMD A10-6800K
    114
    AMD A8-7600
    113
    AMD A10-7800
    103
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    96
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    96
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    95
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    90
    Intel Core i5-2400
    90
    AMD A10-6700
    87
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    84
    Intel Core i5-2300
    81
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    80
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    75
    AMD A8-6500T
    73
    Intel Core i3-2120
    57
    Intel Core i3-3220
    48
    Intel Celeron G1620
    39
    Watt

    A look at the load scenario clearly shows that AMD is right to separate the 125-watt TDP class from the 95-watt class. The measurements of the total system power consumption show a difference in the range of 30 watts, in some cases even more. It's nice to see, but unfortunately it's still a bit too high. After all, over 30 watts separate this mid-range AMD CPU from Intel's Socket 1150 top model i7-4790K.

    In principle, this only gives a rough indication, because at this point the dependency of the load tool is also decisive. This tendency is evident in the tool we have chosen. Intel's top model i7-4790K operates with a TDP of 88 watts, AMD's mid-range model operates with a TDP of 95 watts - roughly the same region. How much leeway the two different CPU models have for maximum TDP under typical load scenarios is unfortunately unclear. It seems that the AMD models are approaching their limits faster here.

    And so in the end there is only one look at the benchmarks, which have to clarify where exactly which CPU is.

    Benchmarks: Synthetic

    PCMark 05

    Information on the benchmark

    Information on the benchmarkAs the name suggests, PCMark 05 dates from 2005 and is therefore already several years under its belt. Nevertheless, the benchmark suite from the Finnish company Futuremark is still very well suited to classifying the computing power of processors and their memory performance. We only use the CPU and memory suite, so that conclusions can only be drawn for these components. The CPU suite is based on eight different tests from the fields of packing / unpacking, encryption, and audio and video processing, and thus allows an overview of the everyday performance of the processors. The CPU suite benefits equally from high clock frequencies and from multiple cores. In the memory suite that is also used, however, factors such as cache rate, cache size and memory bandwidth play a role, since the tests essentially consist of reading, copying and writing data of different sizes to the memory.

    PCMark05

    CPU suite

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    16499,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    14607,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    14361,33
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    13926,66
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    13870,66
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    13592,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    13247,00
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    13120,00
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    12709,66
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    12384,66
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    12214,33
    Intel Core i5-2400
    11534,33
    AMD A10-7850K
    11064,00
    AMD FX-8350
    10752,00
    AMD A10-7800
    10740,00
    AMD A10-6800K
    10667,00
    AMD A8-7600
    10517,00
    Intel Core i5-2300
    10487,67
    AMD A10-6700
    10418,00
    Intel Core i3-3220
    10348,00
    AMD FX-8370E
    9941,00
    Intel Core i3-2120
    9901,00
    AMD FX-8150
    9703,00
    AMD FX-8320E
    9494,00
    Intel Celeron G1620
    7895,50
    AMD A8-6500T
    6933,00
    Points [more is better]
    PCMark05

    Memory suite

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    13621,00
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    12733,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    12672,33
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    11537,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    11414,33
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    10731,00
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    10475,33
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    10342,00
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    9717,33
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    9492,66
    Intel Core i3-3220
    8854,00
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    8447,33
    Intel Core i5-2400
    8040,00
    Intel Core i3-2120
    7780,00
    AMD FX-8350
    7654,00
    AMD FX-8370E
    7583,00
    Intel Core i5-2300
    7564,33
    AMD FX-8320E
    7294,00
    AMD FX-8150
    7234,00
    Intel Celeron G1620
    7080,50
    AMD A10-6700
    6540,00
    AMD A10-6800K
    6488,00
    AMD A10-7850K
    6222,00
    AMD A10-7800
    6088,00
    AMD A8-7600
    5892,00
    AMD A8-6500T
    5117,00
    Points [more is better]

    PCMark 7

    Information on the benchmark

    Information on the benchmarkPCMark 7 was only launched this year and represents the latest system benchmark from Futuremark. We only use the Computation Suite to draw conclusions about the computing power of the processors tested. The suite comprises three different tests from the fields of video transcoding and image processing. It allows you to see the everyday performance of the processors. In addition to a high clock rate, the tests benefit from multiple cores.

    PCMark 7

    Computation suite

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    8679,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    8401,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    8091,67
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    8077,00
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    7937,33
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    7739,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    7602,33
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    7486,33
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    7479,67
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    7293,33
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    6979,00
    AMD A10-7850K
    6747,00
    Intel Core i5-2400
    6703,67
    AMD FX-8350
    6701,00
    AMD A10-7800
    6652,00
    AMD A10-6800K
    6606,00
    AMD A8-7600
    6500,00
    Intel Core i5-2300
    6403,00
    AMD FX-8370E
    6387,00
    Intel Core i3-3220
    6373,00
    AMD FX-8320E
    6263,00
    AMD A10-6700
    6244,00
    AMD FX-8150
    6156,00
    Intel Core i3-2120
    6008,00
    Intel Celeron G1620
    5234,00
    AMD A8-6500T
    4921,00
    Points [more is better]

    Euler3d benchmark

    Essentially, it is a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) application that simulates the flow around and in a certain object. For such applications it is quite common that large caches and many CPU cores can result in a significant increase in performance. More information on the Euler3d benchmark Is there ... here.

    PCMark 7

    Computation suite

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    8679,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    8401,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    8091,67
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    8077,00
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    7937,33
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    7739,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    7602,33
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    7486,33
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    7479,67
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    7293,33
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    6979,00
    AMD A10-7850K
    6747,00
    Intel Core i5-2400
    6703,67
    AMD FX-8350
    6701,00
    AMD A10-7800
    6652,00
    AMD A10-6800K
    6606,00
    AMD A8-7600
    6500,00
    Intel Core i5-2300
    6403,00
    AMD FX-8370E
    6387,00
    Intel Core i3-3220
    6373,00
    AMD FX-8320E
    6263,00
    AMD A10-6700
    6244,00
    AMD FX-8150
    6156,00
    Intel Core i3-2120
    6008,00
    Intel Celeron G1620
    5234,00
    AMD A8-6500T
    4921,00
    Points [more is better]
    Euler3D benchmark

    time

    AMD A8-6500T
    132,49
    AMD A8-7600
    100,10
    AMD A10-7800
    97,50
    AMD A10-7850K
    94,50
    Intel Celeron G1620
    92,11
    AMD A10-6700
    89,82
    AMD A10-6800K
    87,86
    Intel Core i3-2120
    76,85
    Intel Core i3-3220
    69,81
    AMD FX-8150
    54,41
    AMD FX-8320E
    54,21
    Intel Core i5-2300
    53,39
    Intel Core i5-2400
    50,78
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    49,30
    AMD FX-8350
    45,65
    AMD FX-8370E
    45,65
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    42,66
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    42,29
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    41,79
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    38,22
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    36,55
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    33,82
    Intel Core i7-4790K
    31,08
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    7,72
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    7,27
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    6,77
    Seconds (smaller values ​​are better)

    Benchmarks: Audio Editing

    Now we come to the “correct” everyday applications. We want to start with music editing software. All tests are based on a wave file of around 710 MB, which we convert to MP3 files with the help of iTunes, LAME and the Nero AAC encoder. A conversion to the Ogg Vorbis format is also used. All programs are strictly single-threaded, so they only make use of one core.

    iTunes

    Information on the benchmark

    iTunes is a multimedia program from Apple that allows you to play, convert, organize and buy all kinds of music. The first version of the very successful software came on the market in 2001. There is now the ninth revision. We are currently using this with version number 9.1.2.5. However, this version does not yet make use of multi-core processors either. The SSE units are used very often for this.

    ITunes

    Wave to MP3 conversion

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    39
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    43
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    44
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    44
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    46
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    47
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    49
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    50
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    50
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    50
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    52
    Intel Core i3-3220
    52
    Intel Core i5-2400
    54
    Intel Core i3-2120
    55
    Intel Core i5-2300
    59
    Intel Celeron G1620
    64
    AMD A10-6700
    65
    AMD A10-6800K
    65
    AMD FX-8350
    66
    AMD FX-8370E
    69
    AMD FX-8320E
    71
    AMD A10-7850K
    71
    AMD A10-7800
    72
    AMD A8-7600
    75
    AMD FX-8150
    82
    AMD A8-6500T
    92
    Seconds [less is better]

    Nero AAC

    Information on the benchmark

    The Nero AAC encoder is a freely available encoder that is called from the command line and is used in Nero 10, for example. We are using the latest version 1.5.1, which, like iTunes, is not yet multithreaded. High-performance SSE units are therefore the most important criterion for high performance.

    Nero AAC encoder

    Wave to MP3 conversion

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    35
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    40
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    40
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    41
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    41
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    41
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    43
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    44
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    45
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    46
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    46
    Intel Core i3-3220
    48
    Intel Core i5-2400
    50
    Intel Core i3-2120
    51
    Intel Core i5-2300
    55
    AMD A10-6800K
    57
    Intel Celeron G1620
    58
    AMD A10-6700
    59
    AMD FX-8350
    60
    AMD A10-7850K
    61
    AMD FX-8370E
    61
    AMD A10-7800
    63
    AMD FX-8150
    63
    AMD FX-8320E
    64
    AMD A8-7600
    64
    AMD A8-6500T
    83
    Seconds [less is better]

    LAME

    Information on the benchmark

    LAME is an open source encoder for converting audio files into MP3 format. The big difference to the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft's MP3 encoder is that LAME is free. This is why LAME is also used in a large number of software products. We are using the latest version 3.98.4 from March 2010, which does not yet support multi-threading. However, we do not use the fully compiled package but only the source code and create our own program package with the help of VisualStudio 2008 and the integrated C ++ compiler from Microsoft. Normally, however, LAME uses an Intel compiler. In order to avoid any differences, we have created our own version.

    ITunes

    Wave to MP3 conversion

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    39
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    43
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    44
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    44
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    46
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    47
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    49
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    50
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    50
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    50
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    52
    Intel Core i3-3220
    52
    Intel Core i5-2400
    54
    Intel Core i3-2120
    55
    Intel Core i5-2300
    59
    Intel Celeron G1620
    64
    AMD A10-6700
    65
    AMD A10-6800K
    65
    AMD FX-8350
    66
    AMD FX-8370E
    69
    AMD FX-8320E
    71
    AMD A10-7850K
    71
    AMD A10-7800
    72
    AMD A8-7600
    75
    AMD FX-8150
    82
    AMD A8-6500T
    92
    Seconds [less is better]

    OggEnc

    Information on the benchmark

    OggEnc is again a free audio encoder. It converts audio files into the Ogg container format. The structure and structure of Ogg are similar to the MPEG-4 file format MP4. We use version 2.87 of OggEnc and, like the other three programs mentioned, does not support multi-threading.

    OggEnc

    Wave to OggVorbis conversion

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    29
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    33
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    33
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    35
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    36
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    36
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    36
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    37
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    37
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    38
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    39
    Intel Core i3-3220
    40
    Intel Core i5-2400
    41
    Intel Core i3-2120
    42
    Intel Core i5-2300
    46
    Intel Celeron G1620
    50
    AMD A10-7850K
    54
    AMD A10-7800
    55
    AMD FX-8350
    55
    AMD A10-6700
    57
    AMD A8-7600
    57
    AMD A10-6800K
    57
    AMD FX-8370E
    59
    AMD FX-8320E
    64
    AMD FX-8150
    65
    AMD A8-6500T
    81
    Seconds [less is better]

    Benchmarks: image editing

    When it comes to image processing, we rely on the free programs GIMP and IrfanView. Both programs make very weak use of multiple cores, but are more likely to be classified as single-threaded.

    GIMP

    Information on the benchmark

    GIMP is a free and free image manipulation program under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Similar to the paid Adobe Photoshop, GIMP offers numerous filters and allows intensive image processing. The biggest advantage of the GIMP, besides the fact that it is free, is the platform independence. So GIMP can be used under Windows, Linux and OS X.

    A 9000 × 9000 pixel JPEG image is used as a test scenario, on which we first apply a blur filter, then a Gaussian soft focus and finally a red-eye filter. All three filters make little use of multiple cores in version 2.6 we are using.

    GIMP

    Image processing of a 70 MPixel image

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    24,00
    AMD A10-7850K
    27,00
    AMD A10-7800
    27,00
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    28,33
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    28,33
    AMD A8-7600
    29,00
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    29,33
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    29,33
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    29,67
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    30,33
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    31,00
    Intel Core i5-2400
    33,67
    Intel Core i3-3220
    34,00
    AMD FX-8350
    35,00
    Intel Core i3-2120
    35,00
    AMD A10-6800K
    36,00
    AMD A10-6700
    36,00
    Intel Core i5-2300
    36,67
    AMD FX-8370E
    37,00
    AMD FX-8150
    38,00
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    38,00
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    38,00
    AMD FX-8320E
    38,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    42,00
    Intel Celeron G1620
    43,00
    AMD A8-6500T
    50,00
    Seconds [less is better]

    IrfanView

    Information on the benchmark

    In contrast to GIMP, IrfanView is more of an image viewer than an image editing program. Nevertheless, this free software also offers some welcome additional functions, such as something for scaling multiple images.

    We use precisely this function to scale down an image pool with a total of 256 Mbytes of JPEG images to a size of 256 × 156 pixels each. We trust the Irfanview version 4.27, which does not yet handle extensive multithreading.

    IrfanView

    image editing

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    10,09
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    13,01
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    13,06
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    13,08
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    13,25
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    13,97
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    15,25
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    15,43
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    15,55
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    15,59
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    16,82
    AMD FX-8350
    17,49
    AMD FX-8370E
    18,69
    AMD A10-6800K
    18,74
    AMD A10-7850K
    19,20
    Intel Core i5-2400
    19,25
    Intel Core i5-2300
    19,28
    AMD FX-8320E
    19,33
    AMD FX-8150
    19,72
    AMD A10-7800
    20,03
    AMD A10-6700
    20,25
    AMD A8-7600
    20,30
    Intel Core i3-3220
    21,23
    Intel Core i3-2120
    23,26
    Intel Celeron G1620
    23,54
    AMD A8-6500T
    25,85
    Seconds [less is better]

    Benchmarks: Video Editing

    When it comes to video editing, Handbrake and MainConcept are used, which use different codecs with different quality settings. The source file is always a 380 MB HD video. While software that has not made use of multiple cores has primarily been used up to now, MainConcept and Handbrake are two prime examples of parallelization. Even six cores are optimally used.

    Handbrake x264

    Information on the benchmark

    HandBrake is a software for converting video files. Originally developed for BeOS, the free program is now available for OS X, Windows and Linux. We are using Handbrake version 0.9.5, which makes massive use of several cores as well as SSE commands up to SSE 4.2. However, AVX is not yet supported. H.264 is used as the codec.

    We pass two benchmarks with Handbrake. In the first, we convert the above video into an iPod-compatible format of 320 × 176 pixels. In the second, however, we rely on a Full HD resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels.

    Handbrake x264

    Preset: iPod 320 × 176

    Intel Core i7-4790K
    16
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    16
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    16
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    18
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    18
    Intel Core i7-5960X
    18
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    19
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    20
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    20
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    21
    Intel Core i5-2400
    21
    AMD FX-8350
    22
    Intel Core i5-2300
    23
    AMD FX-8150
    25
    AMD FX-8370E
    25
    AMD FX-8320E
    26
    AMD A10-6800K
    26
    AMD A10-6700
    27
    AMD A10-7850K
    27
    AMD A10-7800
    28
    Intel Core i3-3220
    29
    AMD A8-7600
    29
    Intel Core i3-2120
    30
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    38
    AMD A8-6500T
    40
    Intel Celeron G1620
    41
    Seconds [less is better]
    Handbrake x264

    Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080

    Intel Core i7-5960X
    101
    Intel Core i7-4960X
    124
    Intel Core i7-3960X
    133
    Intel Core i7-4790K
    151
    Intel Core i7-4770K
    178
    AMD FX-8350
    180
    Intel Core i7-3770K
    197
    Intel Core i5-4670K
    210
    AMD FX-8150
    211
    Intel Core i7-2700K
    213
    AMD FX-8370E
    219
    Intel Core i7-2600K
    220
    AMD FX-8320E
    222
    Intel Core i5-3570K
    238
    Intel Core i5-2500K
    268
    Intel Core i5-2400
    284
    Intel Core i5-2300
    312
    AMD A10-7850K
    329
    AMD A10-7800
    345
    AMD A10-6800K
    352
    AMD A8-7600
    355
    AMD A10-6700
    375
    Intel Core i3-3220
    443
    Intel Core i3-2120
    467
    AMD A8-6500T
    626
    Intel Celeron G1620
    656
    Seconds [less is better]

    Avisynth & x264 encoder

    Information on the benchmark

    GIMP is a free and free image manipulation program under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Similar to the paid Adobe Photoshop, GIMP offers numerous filters and allows intensive image processing. The biggest advantage of the GIMP, besides the fact that it is free, is the platform independence. So GIMP can be used under Windows, Linux and OS X.

    A 9000 × 9000 pixel JPEG image is used as a test scenario, on which we first apply a blur filter, then a Gaussian soft focus and finally a red-eye filter. All three filters make little use of multiple cores in version 2.6 we are using.

    GIMP

    Image processing of a 70 MPixel image

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    24,00
    AMD A10-7850K

    27,00
    AMD A10-7800

    27,00
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    28,33
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    28,33
    AMD A8-7600

    29,00
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    29,33
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    29,33
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    29,67
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    30,33
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    31,00
    Intel Core i5-2400

    33,67
    Intel Core i3-3220

    34,00
    AMD FX-8350

    35,00
    Intel Core i3-2120

    35,00
    AMD A10-6800K

    36,00
    AMD A10-6700

    36,00
    Intel Core i5-2300

    36,67
    AMD FX-8370E

    37,00
    AMD FX-8150

    38,00
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    38,00
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    38,00
    AMD FX-8320E

    38,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    42,00
    Intel Celeron G1620

    43,00
    AMD A8-6500T

    50,00
    Seconds [less is better]

    IrfanView

    Information on the benchmark

    In contrast to GIMP, IrfanView is more of an image viewer than an image editing program. Nevertheless, this free software also offers some welcome additional functions, such as something for scaling multiple images.

    We use precisely this function to scale down an image pool with a total of 256 Mbytes of JPEG images to a size of 256 × 156 pixels each. We trust the Irfanview version 4.27, which does not yet handle extensive multithreading.

    IrfanView

    image editing

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    10,09
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    13,01
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    13,06
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    13,08
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    13,25
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    13,97
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    15,25
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    15,43
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    15,55
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    15,59
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    16,82
    AMD FX-8350

    17,49
    AMD FX-8370E

    18,69
    AMD A10-6800K

    18,74
    AMD A10-7850K

    19,20
    Intel Core i5-2400

    19,25
    Intel Core i5-2300

    19,28
    AMD FX-8320E

    19,33
    AMD FX-8150

    19,72
    AMD A10-7800

    20,03
    AMD A10-6700

    20,25
    AMD A8-7600

    20,30
    Intel Core i3-3220

    21,23
    Intel Core i3-2120

    23,26
    Intel Celeron G1620

    23,54
    AMD A8-6500T

    25,85
    Seconds [less is better]

    Benchmarks: Video Editing

    When it comes to video editing, Handbrake and MainConcept are used, which use different codecs with different quality settings. The source file is always a 380 MB HD video. While software that has not made use of multiple cores has primarily been used up to now, MainConcept and Handbrake are two prime examples of parallelization. Even six cores are optimally used.

    Handbrake x264

    Information on the benchmark

    HandBrake is a software for converting video files. Originally developed for BeOS, the free program is now available for OS X, Windows and Linux. We are using Handbrake version 0.9.5, which makes massive use of several cores as well as SSE commands up to SSE 4.2. However, AVX is not yet supported. H.264 is used as the codec.

    We pass two benchmarks with Handbrake. In the first, we convert the above video into an iPod-compatible format of 320 × 176 pixels. In the second, however, we rely on a Full HD resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels.

    Handbrake x264

    Preset: iPod 320 × 176

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    16
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    16
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    16
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    18
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    18
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    18
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    19
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    20
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    20
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    21
    Intel Core i5-2400

    21
    AMD FX-8350

    22
    Intel Core i5-2300

    23
    AMD FX-8150

    25
    AMD FX-8370E

    25
    AMD FX-8320E

    26
    AMD A10-6800K

    26
    AMD A10-6700

    27
    AMD A10-7850K

    27
    AMD A10-7800

    28
    Intel Core i3-3220

    29
    AMD A8-7600

    29
    Intel Core i3-2120

    30
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    38
    AMD A8-6500T

    40
    Intel Celeron G1620

    41
    Seconds [less is better]
    Handbrake x264

    Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080

    Intel Core i7-5960X

    101
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    124
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    133
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    151
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    178
    AMD FX-8350

    180
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    197
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    210
    AMD FX-8150

    211
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    213
    AMD FX-8370E

    219
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    220
    AMD FX-8320E

    222
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    238
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    268
    Intel Core i5-2400

    284
    Intel Core i5-2300

    312
    AMD A10-7850K

    329
    AMD A10-7800

    345
    AMD A10-6800K

    352
    AMD A8-7600

    355
    AMD A10-6700

    375
    Intel Core i3-3220

    443
    Intel Core i3-2120

    467
    AMD A8-6500T

    626
    Intel Celeron G1620

    656
    Seconds [less is better]

    Avisynth & x264 encoder

    Information on the benchmark

    The x264 encoder is a platfo

    Assassin's Creed III

    Universal encoder for the video format H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC) and is published under the GNU General Public License. The special thing about it is that the source code can be viewed, so you can always understand what the encoder is doing. By default, the x264 encoder does not have a GUI for operation, because this is done exclusively via the console with the help of AviSynth scripts. We are currently using the x264 encoder in revision r2053, which already includes initial support for the AVX vector extension. In addition, the encoder makes massive use of several cores and SSE commands up to SSE 4.2.

    With the encoder we convert a 720p video into the H.264 format. We use a 2-pass conversion which we complete four times. Then we determine both the mean value for the conversion time and the mean frame rates for each of the two runs.

    x264 encoder

    time

    Intel Core i7-5960X

    23
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    26
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    29
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    29
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    34
    AMD FX-8350

    38
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    39
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    40
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    43
    AMD FX-8150

    44
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    44
    AMD FX-8370E

    45
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    46
    AMD FX-8320E

    47
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    54
    Intel Core i5-2400

    57
    Intel Core i5-2300

    62
    AMD A10-7850K

    65
    AMD A10-7800

    67
    AMD A10-6800K

    69
    AMD A8-7600

    69
    AMD A10-6700

    72
    Intel Core i3-3220

    81
    Intel Core i3-2120

    89
    AMD A8-6500T

    118
    Intel Celeron G1620

    122
    Seconds [less is better]
    x264 encoder

    Pass 1

    Intel Celeron G1620

    72
    AMD A8-6500T

    72
    Intel Core i3-2120

    97
    Intel Core i3-3220

    106
    AMD A10-6700

    111
    AMD A8-7600

    113
    AMD A10-6800K

    116
    AMD A10-7800

    116
    AMD A10-7850K

    120
    Intel Core i5-2300

    134
    AMD FX-8320E

    137
    AMD FX-8370E

    143
    AMD FX-8150

    145
    Intel Core i5-2400

    146
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    153
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    159
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    164
    AMD FX-8350

    165
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    177
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    180
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    193
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    195
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    210
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    211
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    224
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    225
    Frames per Second [more is better]
    x264 encoder

    Pass 2

    Intel Celeron G1620

    14
    AMD A8-6500T

    15
    Intel Core i3-2120

    20
    Intel Core i3-3220

    21
    AMD A10-6700

    25
    AMD A8-7600

    26
    AMD A10-6800K

    26
    AMD A10-7800

    27
    AMD A10-7850K

    28
    Intel Core i5-2300

    28
    Intel Core i5-2400

    31
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    33
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    38
    AMD FX-8320E

    41
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    41
    AMD FX-8370E

    42
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    43
    AMD FX-8150

    43
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    45
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    47
    AMD FX-8350

    50
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    55
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    65
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    68
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    75
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    92
    Frames per Second [more is better]

    Benchmarks: Packer

    We use 7-Zip, WinRAR and WinZip as packing programs, whereby WinZip and 7-Zip are used both once with AES encryption and once without this feature. In both cases, the highest compression level (Ultra) is selected.

    7-Zip

    Information on the benchmark

    7-Zip is a free packing program that was launched by the Russian programmer Igor Pavlov in 1999 and is still intensively maintained today. It represents the reference implementation of the Lempel-Ziv-Markow algorithm (LZMA) that he developed.

    We use version 9.20 in the 64-bit variant. LZMA2 is used as the compression method. This supports unrestricted multithreading. 7-Zip is of course used as the archive type.

    7 Zip

    without AES

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    52
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    55
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    56
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    56
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    57
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    57
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    58
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    67
    AMD FX-8350

    67
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    68
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    70
    AMD FX-8320E

    71
    AMD FX-8370E

    71
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    72
    Intel Core i5-2400

    74
    AMD FX-8150

    75
    Intel Core i5-2300

    79
    Intel Core i3-3220

    81
    AMD A10-6700

    88
    AMD A10-6800K

    93
    Intel Core i3-2120

    98
    AMD A10-7850K

    106
    AMD A8-6500T

    109
    AMD A10-7800

    109
    AMD A8-7600

    113
    Intel Celeron G1620

    125
    Seconds [less is better]

    WinRAR

    Information on the benchmark

    WinRAR is different from 7-Zip shareware. Nevertheless, you can use it almost without restriction for free. Similar to 7-Zip, it supports various archive formats, including the RAR format that gives it its name and is used by us. We use version 4.01 in the 64-bit variant. This is fully multi-threaded and makes optimal use of all existing cores. However, like us, you have to create a real archive and not use the integrated benchmark, because it only supports a few cores.

    WinRAR

    highest compression rate

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    13
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    15
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    16
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    17
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    17
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    18
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    18
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    18
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    19
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    19
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    20
    Intel Core i5-2400

    22
    Intel Core i3-3220

    23
    Intel Core i5-2300

    23
    AMD FX-8350

    23
    AMD FX-8150

    25
    AMD FX-8320E

    25
    Intel Core i3-2120

    26
    AMD FX-8370E

    26
    Intel Celeron G1620

    28
    AMD A10-6700

    30
    AMD A10-7850K

    31
    AMD A10-6800K

    31
    AMD A10-7800

    31
    AMD A8-7600

    32
    AMD A8-6500T

    39
    Seconds [less is better]

    WinZip

    Information on the benchmark

    WinZip is also not a free program, but the shareware version offers enough functionality and can run without restrictions. In the version 14.5 we use, WinZip supports AES encryption, which is supported, for example, by "Sandy Bridge" but also by some processors from the first Core i generation. In terms of multi-threading, the same applies as with 7-Zip. So only here a maximum of four cores are optimally used. The name-giving zip format is used as the archive format.

    WinZip

    Encryption: none

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    39
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    44
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    45
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    49
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    50
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    51
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    51
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    52
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    53
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    54
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    54
    Intel Core i5-2400

    58
    AMD FX-8350

    59
    Intel Core i3-3220

    59
    AMD FX-8370E

    60
    Intel Core i3-2120

    61
    AMD A10-6700

    61
    AMD A10-6800K

    61
    AMD FX-8150

    62
    AMD A10-7850K

    62
    AMD FX-8320E

    63
    Intel Core i5-2300

    65
    AMD A10-7800

    68
    AMD A8-7600

    69
    Intel Celeron G1620

    75
    AMD A8-6500T

    84
    Seconds [less is better]

    Benchmarks: rendering

    In the rendering segment we trust Blender, Cinebench version 11.5 and POV-Ray. All three programs make massive use of multi-core processors, so each additional core saves real time.

    Blender

    Information on the benchmark

    Blender is a 3D graphics software designed completely for multi-threading, which contains functions to model, texture, animate and render three-dimensional bodies. Originally, Blender was an in-house program for the Dutch animation studio NeoGeo. The chief developer Ton Roosendaal founded the company Not a Number Technologies (NaN) in 1998 to further develop and sell blenders. After the company went bankrupt, however, the creditors agreed to put Blender under the free software license GNU General Public License (GPL) for an amount of 100.000 euros. Thus, Blender is now freely available and expandable. We use Blender as a 64-bit offshoot in version 2.59.

    Blender

    FlyingSquirrel

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    19
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    23
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    23
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    24
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    24
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    24
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    25
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    25
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    27
    Intel Core i3-3220

    28
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    28
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    29
    Intel Core i5-2400

    30
    Intel Core i3-2120

    30
    AMD A10-6800K

    33
    Intel Core i5-2300

    33
    AMD FX-8350

    34
    AMD A10-7850K

    34
    AMD A10-6700

    35
    Intel Celeron G1620

    35
    AMD A10-7800

    35
    AMD FX-8150

    36
    AMD A8-7600

    36
    AMD FX-8370E

    37
    AMD FX-8320E

    38
    AMD A8-6500T

    45
    Seconds [less is better]

    POV-Ray

    Information on the benchmark

    POV-Ray is a free graphics program which, like Blender, makes heavy use of multithreading. With POV-Ray, not only 2D but also 3D scenes can be created. The software has been developed for over 20 years and new functions are constantly being added. An integrated test is used as a benchmark. As with Blender, we rely on a 64-bit offshoot of version 3.7 Beta 38 for the program version. This version supports both SSE2 and SSE4 extensions to increase performance. The new AVX commands are not yet integrated.

    POV-Ray 3.7

    Rendering

    Intel Core i7-5960X

    96
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    120
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    130
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    142
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    168
    AMD FX-8350

    175
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    191
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    193
    AMD FX-8150

    202
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    207
    AMD FX-8370E

    210
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    214
    AMD FX-8320E

    216
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    230
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    261
    Intel Core i5-2400

    278
    Intel Core i5-2300

    307
    AMD A10-7850K

    322
    AMD A10-6800K

    331
    AMD A10-7800

    335
    AMD A8-7600

    340
    AMD A10-6700

    358
    Intel Core i3-3220

    427
    Intel Core i3-2120

    452
    AMD A8-6500T

    604
    Intel Celeron G1620

    625
    Seconds [less is better]

    Cinebench 11.5

    Information on the benchmark

    We test Maxon's Cinema4D rendering software from Germany using Cinebench 11.5, which is available for both Mac and Windows. Maxon uses the underlying Cinema4D engineering not only in Cinebench, but also in commercial products that were involved in the development of the movie "Spider Man", for example. The engine uses massive multithreading to reduce runtime. As usual in Cinebench, we present the result of just one core as well as that when all cores or threads are used.

    Cinebench

    CPU - all cores

    Intel Core i7-5960X

    14,29
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    12,16
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    11,44
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    9,66
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    8,11
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    7,53
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    7,00
    AMD FX-8350

    6,92
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    6,79
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    6,18
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    6,01
    AMD FX-8150

    5,96
    AMD FX-8370E

    5,63
    AMD FX-8320E

    5,54
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    5,39
    Intel Core i5-2400

    5,08
    Intel Core i5-2300

    4,62
    AMD A10-7850K

    3,58
    AMD A10-6800K

    3,52
    AMD A10-7800

    3,39
    AMD A8-7600

    3,36
    AMD A10-6700

    3,34
    Intel Core i3-3220

    3,32
    Intel Core i3-2120

    3,18
    Intel Celeron G1620

    2,17
    AMD A8-6500T

    2,01
    Points [more is better]

    Benchmarks: encryption

    Truecrypt

    Information on the benchmark

    TrueCrypt is encryption software with which entire data carriers or individual files can be encrypted. The program is freely available and can be used under Windows as well as Mac OS X and Linux. AES, Twofish and Serpent and combinations of these three can be used as encryption algorithms. If you rely on AES encryption and use a processor with the AES instruction set extension, the encryption or decryption can be greatly accelerated with the aid of the extension.

    We use version 7.0a. This supports both the AES extension and multithreading. We use the integrated benchmark with a buffer size of 1000 Mbytes.

    TrueCrypt
    [AES]
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    5700,00
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    5200,00
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    5200,00
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    5000,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    4505,60
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    3788,80
    AMD FX-8350

    3700,00
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    3584,00
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    3481,60
    AMD FX-8150

    3300,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    3174,40
    AMD FX-8370E

    3100,00
    AMD FX-8320E

    3000,00
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    2867,10
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    2662,40
    Intel Core i5-2400

    2457,60
    AMD A10-7850K

    2252,80
    Intel Core i5-2300

    2218,70
    AMD A10-7800

    2100,00
    AMD A8-7600

    2058,00
    AMD A10-6800K

    2013,90
    AMD A10-6700

    1945,60
    AMD A8-6500T

    1331,20
    Intel Core i3-3220

    330,00
    Intel Core i3-2120

    308,50
    Intel Celeron G1620

    233,50
    MByte / s [more is better]
    TrueCrypt
    [Serpent]
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    630,00
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    618,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    546,00
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    473,00
    AMD FX-8350

    432,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    398,00
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    387,00
    AMD FX-8150

    383,00
    AMD FX-8370E

    360,00
    AMD FX-8320E

    349,00
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    330,66
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    325,00
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    304,00
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    289,67
    AMD A10-7850K

    273,00
    AMD A10-7800

    267,00
    AMD A8-7600

    260,00
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    229,00
    AMD A10-6800K

    225,00
    AMD A10-6700

    219,67
    Intel Core i5-2400

    215,67
    Intel Core i5-2300

    195,67
    Intel Core i3-3220

    172,00
    Intel Core i3-2120

    153,00
    AMD A8-6500T

    147,00
    Intel Celeron G1620

    107,00
    MByte / s [more is better]
    TrueCrypt
    [Twofish]
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    1100,00
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    1000,00
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    942,00
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    806,00
    AMD FX-8350

    710,00
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    683,66
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    648,00
    AMD FX-8150

    610,00
    AMD FX-8370E

    584,00
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    576,00
    AMD FX-8320E

    566,00
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    560,67
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    458,33
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    445,33
    AMD A10-7850K

    413,00
    AMD A10-7800

    398,00
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    393,66
    AMD A8-7600

    390,00
    AMD A10-6800K

    378,00
    Intel Core i5-2400

    376,00
    AMD A10-6700

    365,33
    Intel Core i5-2300

    340,67
    Intel Core i3-3220

    285,00
    Intel Core i3-2120

    264,00
    AMD A8-6500T

    245,00
    Intel Celeron G1620

    165,00
    MByte / s [more is better]

    7-Zip: AES

    Information on the benchmark

    7-Zip is a free packing program that was launched by the Russian programmer Igor Pavlov in 1999 and is still intensively maintained today. It represents the reference implementation of the Lempel-Ziv-Markow algorithm (LZMA) that he developed.

    We use version 9.20 in the 64-bit variant. LZMA2 is used as the compression method. This supports unrestricted multithreading. 7-Zip is of course used as the archive type.

    7 Zip

    with AES

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    51
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    55
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    56
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    56
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    56
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    57
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    57
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    65
    AMD FX-8350

    67
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    68
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    70
    AMD FX-8320E

    71
    AMD FX-8370E

    71
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    73
    AMD FX-8150

    75
    Intel Core i5-2400

    75
    Intel Core i5-2300

    78
    Intel Core i3-3220

    80
    AMD A10-6700

    89
    AMD A10-6800K

    93
    Intel Core i3-2120

    100
    AMD A10-7850K

    106
    AMD A10-7800

    108
    AMD A8-6500T

    109
    AMD A8-7600

    113
    Intel Celeron G1620

    128
    Seconds [less is better]

    WinZip: AES

    Information on the benchmark

    WinZip is also not a free program, but the shareware version offers enough functionality and can run without restrictions. In the version 14.5 we use, WinZip supports AES encryption, which is supported, for example, by "Sandy Bridge" but also by some processors from the first Core i generation. In terms of multi-threading, the same applies as with 7-Zip. So only here a maximum of four cores are optimally used. The name-giving zip format is used as the archive format.

    WinZip

    Encryption: AES 256 bit

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    39
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    44
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    45
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    49
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    50
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    51
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    51
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    52
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    52
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    54
    Intel Core i5-2400

    58
    AMD FX-8350

    59
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    59
    Intel Core i3-3220

    59
    AMD FX-8370E

    61
    Intel Core i3-2120

    61
    AMD A10-6800K

    61
    AMD A10-6700

    61
    AMD FX-8150

    62
    AMD FX-8320E

    63
    AMD A10-7850K

    63
    Intel Core i5-2300

    64
    AMD A8-7600

    69
    AMD A10-7800

    70
    Intel Celeron G1620

    75
    AMD A8-6500T

    84
    Seconds [less is better]

    Benchmarks: Games [dGPU]

    We use two resolutions below. On the one hand we show benchmarks below 1366 x 768 pixels, on the other hand benchmarks with a resolution of 1680 x 1050. In the last-mentioned resolution we show medium levels of detail, in the first-mentioned resolution we have manually lowered the detail levels from Medium a little come close to "notebook quality" with an integrated GPU.

    The scenes used are not identical to our usual graphics card benchmarks. At this point, of course, we tried to choose game sequences that had a CPU rather than a GPU limit.

    Assassin's Creed III

    Game Assassin's Creed III
    Developer Ubisoft
    Publisher Ubisoft
    publication November 2012
    Gender Action adventure
    Age rating 16 years
    Graphics engine AnvilNext and Havok Physics
    DirectX path DirectX 9, 11
    Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
    Test area Boston City - Sequence III Main Mission
    Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
    Benchmark settings see the following table
    Find on Amazon*

    Image: Haswell: Intel's new Core i7-4770 and i5-4670 processors in the test

    In-game test scene

    Quality settings 1366 x 768 1680 x 1050
    Environmental quality Normal Very high
    Texture quality Normal High
    Shadow quality Normal Very high
    Anti-aliasing FXAA FXAA
    Assassins Creed III

    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    109,68
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    102,43
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    97,94
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    96,50
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    93,11
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    92,02
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    90,41
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    82,22
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    77,97
    Intel Core i5-2400

    75,25
    Intel Core i5-2300

    73,66
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    72,55
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    71,16
    AMD FX-8350

    63,41
    Intel Core i3-3220

    62,31
    AMD FX-8320E

    58,06
    AMD FX-8370E

    57,38
    Intel Core i3-2120

    57,12
    AMD A10-6800K

    55,28
    AMD A10-7850K

    53,13
    AMD A10-7800

    50,33
    AMD FX-8150

    49,36
    AMD A10-6700

    49,14
    AMD A8-7600

    47,90
    Intel Celeron G1620

    41,87
    AMD A8-6500T

    36,76
    Frames per Second [more is better]
    Assassins Creed III

    1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    80,37
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    73,26
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    72,33
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    70,33
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    69,19
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    65,19
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    61,81
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    60,44
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    57,84
    Intel Core i5-2400

    54,44
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    54,36
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    52,87
    Intel Core i5-2300

    52,85
    Intel Core i3-3220

    46,16
    AMD FX-8350

    45,28
    AMD FX-8370E

    41,02
    Intel Core i3-2120

    40,94
    AMD FX-8320E

    40,56
    AMD A10-6800K

    39,37
    AMD A10-7850K

    38,40
    AMD FX-8150

    36,21
    AMD A10-6700

    35,82
    AMD A10-7800

    35,77
    AMD A8-7600

    35,22
    Intel Celeron G1620

    29,16
    AMD A8-6500T

    27,45
    Frames per Second [more is better]

    Crysis 3

    Game Crysis 3
    Developer Crytek
    Publisher Electronic Arts
    publication 21. February 2013
    Gender Ego shooter
    Graphics engine CryENGINE 3
    DirectX path DirectX 9, 11
    Age rating USK 18 years
    Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
    Test area Mission 4: Swamp
    Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
    Benchmark settings see the following table
    Order from Amazon*

    Image: Haswell: Intel's new Core i7-4770 and i5-4670 processors in the test

    In-game test scene

    Quality settings 1366 x 768 1680 x 1050
    System setting Medium High
    Texture resolution Medium High
    Anisotropic filter 16x 16x
    Anti-aliasing 1 FXAA
    Crysis 3

    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    170,38
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    162,96
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    162,87
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    154,31
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    153,08
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    135,78
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    133,14
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    125,41
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    121,92
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    121,32
    AMD FX-8350

    109,47
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    107,80
    Intel Core i5-2400

    102,79
    AMD FX-8370E

    95,21
    Intel Core i5-2300

    94,36
    AMD FX-8320E

    93,35
    AMD FX-8150

    86,38
    Intel Core i3-3220

    76,03
    Intel Core i3-2120

    71,24
    AMD A10-6800K

    64,95
    AMD A10-6700

    64,15
    AMD A10-7850K

    62,51
    AMD A10-7800

    57,06
    AMD A8-7600

    48,93
    AMD A8-6500T

    42,14
    Intel Celeron G1620

    40,46
    Frames per Second [more is better]
    Crysis 3

    1680 x 1050 [FXAA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    106,67
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    101,05
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    100,92
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    100,65
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    99,59
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    99,47
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    95,43
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    92,74
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    91,87
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    89,72
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    80,68
    AMD FX-8350

    77,08
    Intel Core i5-2400

    76,62
    Intel Core i5-2300

    69,69
    AMD FX-8370E

    66,49
    AMD FX-8320E

    66,34
    AMD FX-8150

    61,76
    Intel Core i3-3220

    55,07
    Intel Core i3-2120

    51,54
    AMD A10-6800K

    49,32
    AMD A10-6700

    49,21
    AMD A10-7850K

    47,97
    AMD A10-7800

    45,74
    AMD A8-7600

    43,43
    AMD A8-6500T

    30,46
    Intel Celeron G1620

    29,06
    Frames per Second [more is better]

    Serious Sam 3

    Game Serious Sam 3 - SFOE
    Developer Croteam
    Publisher Devolver Digital
    publication 23. April 2012
    Gender Ego shooter
    Graphics engine Serious Engine V. 3.5
    DirectX path DirectX 9
    Age rating USK 18 years
    Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
    Test area In the web of the spider
    Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
    Benchmark settings see the following table
    Order from Amazon*

    Image: Haswell: Intel's new Core i7-4770 and i5-4670 processors in the test
    In-game test scene

    Quality settings 1366 x 768 1680 x 1050
    CPU speed Medium Ultra
    GPU speed Medium Ultra
    GPU memory Medium Ultra
    Anti-aliasing 1 1
    SSAA Aus Aus
    Anisotropic filter 16x 16x
    Serious Sam 3

    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    101,59
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    88,39
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    85,05
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    84,61
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    67,28
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    64,01
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    62,61
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    61,72
    AMD FX-8350

    60,39
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    58,59
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    58,54
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    58,45
    Intel Core i3-3220

    56,53
    Intel Core i5-2400

    55,96
    AMD FX-8370E

    54,89
    AMD A10-6800K

    54,69
    AMD FX-8320E

    53,11
    AMD A10-6700

    52,87
    Intel Core i3-2120

    52,64
    Intel Core i5-2300

    50,15
    AMD A10-7850K

    44,73
    Intel Celeron G1620

    43,89
    AMD A10-7800

    42,80
    AMD FX-8150

    42,20
    AMD A8-7600

    41,19
    AMD A8-6500T

    32,05
    Frames per Second [more is better]
    Serious Sam 3

    1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    84,51
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    72,86
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    69,87
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    68,45
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    57,56
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    56,04
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    55,67
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    53,75
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    52,96
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    51,36
    AMD FX-8350

    50,17
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    49,29
    Intel Core i3-3220

    48,05
    Intel Core i5-2400

    47,11
    AMD FX-8370E

    45,01
    Intel Core i3-2120

    44,85
    AMD A10-6700

    44,43
    AMD A10-6800K

    44,03
    AMD FX-8320E

    43,79
    Intel Core i5-2300

    43,33
    AMD A10-7850K

    42,71
    AMD A10-7800

    41,16
    AMD A8-7600

    40,35
    AMD FX-8150

    39,77
    Intel Celeron G1620

    37,42
    AMD A8-6500T

    31,66
    Frames per Second [more is better]

    TES V: Skyrim

    Game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
    Developer Bethesda Game Studios
    Publisher Bethesda Softworks
    publication March 2012
    Gender role playing game
    Age rating 16 years
    Graphics engine Creation Engine
    DirectX path DirectX 9
    Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
    Test area Rifton
    Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
    Benchmark settings See the table below
    Order from Amazon*

    Image: Haswell: Intel's new Core i7-4770 and i5-4670 processors in the test
    In-game test scene

    Quality settings 1366 x 768 1680 x 1050
    Details Medium High
    High-res textures Aus Aus
    Anti-aliasing 1 4x and FXAA
    Anisotropic filter 16x 16x
    TES V: Skyrim

    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    120,50
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    106,94
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    106,81
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    97,44
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    93,27
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    91,43
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    89,12
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    85,40
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    82,31
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    81,89
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    77,50
    Intel Core i5-2400

    74,44
    Intel Core i5-2300

    68,47
    Intel Core i3-3220

    67,08
    Intel Core i3-2120

    66,40
    AMD FX-8350

    63,11
    AMD FX-8370E

    56,79
    AMD FX-8320E

    55,48
    Intel Celeron G1620

    54,25
    AMD FX-8150

    53,70
    AMD A10-6800K

    53,12
    AMD A10-6700

    50,95
    AMD A10-7850K

    50,33
    AMD A10-7800

    48,22
    AMD A8-7600

    46,84
    AMD A8-6500T

    38,32
    Frames per Second [more is better]
    TES V: Skyrim

    1680 x 1050 [4xAA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4960X

    75,37
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    70,63
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    66,89
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    64,60
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    63,60
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    63,51
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    60,02
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    58,94
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    57,73
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    54,25
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    53,53
    Intel Core i5-2400

    51,74
    Intel Core i3-3220

    50,35
    Intel Core i5-2300

    48,50
    Intel Core i3-2120

    46,71
    AMD FX-8350

    46,20
    AMD FX-8370E

    42,51
    AMD FX-8320E

    40,42
    AMD FX-8150

    39,77
    Intel Celeron G1620

    38,72
    AMD A10-6800K

    38,44
    AMD A10-7850K

    36,56
    AMD A10-6700

    35,61
    AMD A10-7800

    35,21
    AMD A8-7600

    34,28
    AMD A8-6500T

    28,39
    Frames per Second [more is better]

    Tomb Raider (2013)

    Game tomb raider
    Developer Crystal Dynamics & Eidos Montreal
    Publisher Square Enix
    publication 5. March 2013
    Gender Action-Adventure
    Graphics engine Crystal engine
    DirectX path DirectX 9, 11
    Age rating USK 18 years
    Benchmark measurement Fraps / savegame
    Test area Barrack town
    Runtime benchmark 10 seconds
    Benchmark settings see the following table
    HT4U test Order from Amazon*

    Image: Haswell: Intel's new Core i7-4770 and i5-4670 processors in the test
    In-game test scene

    Quality settings 1366 x 768 1680 x 1050
    Quality Normal Highest
    Hair quality Normal TressFX
    Shadow Normal Ultra
    Tessellation Aus An
    Anti-aliasing 1 FXAA
    Anisotropic filter 16x 16x
    tomb raider

    1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-3960X

    110,99
    Intel Core i7-4790K

    109,19
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    106,14
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    89,19
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    85,51
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    84,28
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    83,39
    AMD FX-8350

    80,65
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    79,55
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    76,85
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    76,33
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    72,17
    AMD FX-8370E

    69,36
    Intel Core i5-2400

    69,06
    AMD FX-8150

    68,26
    AMD FX-8320E

    68,07
    Intel Core i5-2300

    64,30
    Intel Core i3-3220

    58,14
    Intel Core i3-2120

    53,65
    AMD A10-6700

    50,43
    AMD A10-6800K

    47,03
    AMD A10-7850K

    46,24
    AMD A10-7800

    44,68
    Intel Celeron G1620

    42,83
    AMD A8-7600

    42,51
    AMD A8-6500T

    34,62
    Frames per Second [more is better]
    tomb raider

    1680 x 1050 [Post AA / 16xAF]

    Intel Core i7-4790K

    57,84
    Intel Core i7-3960X

    52,81
    Intel Core i7-4960X

    51,84
    AMD FX-8350

    46,07
    Intel Core i7-4770K

    45,93
    Intel Core i7-5960X

    45,27
    Intel Core i5-4670K

    42,93
    Intel Core i7-3770K

    42,47
    Intel Core i5-3570K

    40,71
    AMD FX-8370E

    39,96
    AMD FX-8320E

    39,56
    Intel Core i7-2700K

    39,26
    Intel Core i7-2600K

    39,12
    AMD FX-8150

    38,64
    Intel Core i5-2500K

    36,43
    Intel Core i5-2400

    35,58
    Intel Core i5-2300

    33,00
    Intel Core i3-3220

    31,55
    Intel Core i3-2120

    29,46
    AMD A10-6700

    25,76
    AMD A10-6800K

    23,95
    AMD A10-7850K

    23,72
    Intel Celeron G1620

    23,26
    AMD A8-7600

    21,93
    AMD A10-7800

    18,65
    AMD A8-6500T

    16,45
    Frames per Second [more is better]

    Processor comparison

    Choice of products



      AMD FX-8370E AMD FX-8320E
      Assassins Creed III
      1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
      57,4 58,1 (+1,2%)
      Assassins Creed III
      1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF]
      41,0 40,6 (-1,1%)
      Crysis 3
      1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
      95,2 93,3 (-2,0%)
      Crysis 3
      1680 x 1050 [FXAA / 16xAF]
      66,5 66,3 (-0,2%)
      Serious Sam 3
      1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
      54,9 53,1 (-3,3%)
      Serious Sam 3
      1680 x 1050 [No AA / 16xAF]
      45,0 43,8 (-2,7%)
      TES V: Skyrim
      1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
      56,8 55,5 (-2,3%)
      TES V: Skyrim
      1680 x 1050 [4xAA / 16xAF]
      42,5 40,4 (-4,9%)
      tomb raider
      1366 x 768 [No AA / 16xAF]
      69,4 68,1 (-1,9%)
      tomb raider
      1680 x 1050 [Post AA / 16xAF]
      40,0 39,6 (-1,0%)
      Euler3D benchmark
      Score [points (higher values ​​are better)]
      4,4 3,7 (-15,8%)
      Euler3D benchmark
      Time [seconds (smaller values ​​are better)]
      45,7 54,2 (+18,8%)
      PCMark05
      CPU suite [points [more is better]]
      9 941,0 9 (-4,5%)
      PCMark05
      Memory suite [points [more is better]]
      7 583,0 7 (-3,8%)
      PCMark 7
      Computation Suite [points [more is better]]
      6 387,0 6 (-1,9%)
      GIMP
      Image processing of a 70 MPixel image [seconds [less is better]]
      37,0 38,0 (-2,6%)
      IrfanView
      Image processing [seconds [less is better]]
      18,7 19,3 (-3,3%)
      ITunes
      Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]]
      68,9 70,8 (-2,7%)
      Lame
      Wave to MP3 conversion (created with VisualStudio) [seconds [less is better]]
      78,7 81,4 (-3,4%)
      Nero AAC encoder
      Wave to MP3 conversion [seconds [less is better]]
      61,4 63,6 (-3,4%)
      OggEnc
      Wave to OggVorbis conversion [seconds [less is better]]
      58,7 63,6 (-7,7%)
      x264 encoder
      Time [seconds [less is better]]
      45,4 46,8 (-2,9%)
      x264 encoder
      Pass 1 [frames per second [more is better]]
      143,2 137,2 (+4,3%)
      x264 encoder
      Pass 2 [frames per second [more is better]]
      41,6 40,6 (+2,4%)
      Handbrake x264
      Preset: iPod 320 × 176 [seconds [less is better]]
      25,1 25,8 (-2,8%)
      Handbrake x264
      Preset: High Profile 1920 × 1080 [seconds [less is better]]
      218,7 221,8 (-1,4%)
      Blender
      FlyingSquirrel [seconds [less is better]]
      36,7 38,1 (-3,6%)
      POV-Ray 3.7
      Rendering [seconds [less is better]]
      210,5 215,8 (-2,5%)
      Cinebench
      CPU - all cores [points [more is better]]
      5,63 5,54 (-1,6%)
      7 Zip
      without AES [seconds [less is better]]
      71,4 70,8 (+0,8%)
      7 Zip
      with AES [seconds [less is better]]
      71,4 71,0 (+0,6%)
      WinRAR
      highest compression rate [seconds [less is better]]
      25,7 25,5 (+0,8%)
      WinZip
      Encryption: None [seconds [less is better]]
      60,4 62,8 (-3,9%)
      WinZip
      Encryption: AES 256 bit [seconds [less is better]]
      60,7 62,8 (-3,3%)
      TrueCrypt
      [AES] [MByte / s [more is better]]
      3 100,0 3 (-3,2%)
      TrueCrypt
      [Serpent] [MByte / s [more is better]]
      360,0 349,0 (-3,1%)
      TrueCrypt
      [Twofish] [MByte / s [more is better]]
      584,0 566,0 (-3,1%)

      Performance index [CPU]

      The HT4U.net performance index represents the complete benchmark course of the previous article in a simple overview. The results of the individual models in this index are based on averaging the individual results from the various benchmarks in this article. The settings used for calculating the index can be found in the legend of the diagrams.

      For those who are interested in the mathematical relationship, a brief explanation of how the values ​​are calculated follows. For this purpose, each individual benchmark is first standardized to a reference product. This is necessary so that, at the end of the day, every benchmark is included equally in the overall index and benchmarks with higher values ​​are not weighted more heavily than those with lower ones. Finally, the mean value is calculated using the geometric mean, in which the normalized individual values ​​are multiplied and the nth root is then taken from the product determined.

      The following indices can therefore only give a first rough overview of how the processors sort themselves as a complete product with all their functions in terms of performance. A generalization to all applications or even to the underlying architecture of the respective processors is therefore not possible. In order to make such statements, it is inevitable to consult the associated articles and individual benchmarks. A discrete model was always used as the graphics card and not the integrated solution - if available.

      Games [dGPU]

      Performance index
      Games
      Intel Core i7-4790K

      175
      Intel Core i7-4770K

      158
      Intel Core i7-4960X

      155
      Intel Core i7-3960X

      154
      Intel Core i7-5960X

      150
      Intel Core i5-4670K

      148
      Intel Core i7-3770K

      139
      Intel Core i5-3570K

      134
      Intel Core i7-2700K

      127
      Intel Core i7-2600K

      125
      Intel Core i5-2500K

      120
      Intel Core i5-2400

      115
      AMD FX-8350

      115
      Intel Core i5-2300

      107
      AMD FX-8370E

      102
      AMD FX-8320E

      100
      Intel Core i3-3220

      100
      Intel Core i3-2120

      93
      AMD FX-8150

      92
      AMD A10-6800K

      85
      AMD A10-6700

      83
      AMD A10-7850K

      81
      AMD A10-7800

      75
      AMD A8-7600

      73
      Intel Celeron G1620

      69
      AMD A8-6500T

      58
      percent
      Show / hide benchmark overview

      Applications

      Performance index
      All tests (excluding games)
      Intel Core i7-4790K

      150
      Intel Core i7-5960X

      138
      Intel Core i7-4960X

      136
      Intel Core i7-3960X

      135
      Intel Core i7-4770K

      134
      Intel Core i7-3770K

      129
      Intel Core i5-4670K

      124
      Intel Core i7-2700K

      120
      Intel Core i5-3570K

      119
      Intel Core i7-2600K

      115
      AMD FX-8350

      110
      Intel Core i5-2500K

      109
      Intel Core i5-2400

      103
      AMD FX-8370E

      102
      AMD FX-8150

      101
      AMD FX-8320E

      100
      Intel Core i5-2300

      97
      AMD A10-7850K

      92
      AMD A10-6800K

      92
      AMD A10-6700

      90
      AMD A10-7800

      90
      Intel Core i3-3220

      89
      AMD A8-7600

      88
      Intel Core i3-2120

      84
      Intel Celeron G1620

      71
      AMD A8-6500T

      69
      percent
      Show / hide benchmark overview

      Complete index [dGPU]

      Performance index
      All tests
      Intel Core i7-4790K

      156
      Intel Core i7-5960X

      141
      Intel Core i7-4960X

      141
      Intel Core i7-3960X

      140
      Intel Core i7-4770K

      140
      Intel Core i7-3770K

      132
      Intel Core i5-4670K

      130
      Intel Core i5-3570K

      123
      Intel Core i7-2700K

      122
      Intel Core i7-2600K

      117
      Intel Core i5-2500K

      112
      AMD FX-8350

      111
      Intel Core i5-2400

      106
      AMD FX-8370E

      102
      AMD FX-8320E

      100
      Intel Core i5-2300

      100
      AMD FX-8150

      98
      Intel Core i3-3220

      92
      AMD A10-6800K

      90
      AMD A10-7850K

      89
      AMD A10-6700

      88
      Intel Core i3-2120

      86
      AMD A10-7800

      86
      AMD A8-7600

      84
      Intel Celeron G1620

      70
      AMD A8-6500T

      66
      percent
      Show / hide benchmark overview

      Summary

      With the FX-8370E and the FX-8320E, AMD has been able to significantly reduce the power consumption of its mid-range desktop processors. The class is now no longer an outdated 125 watts, but 95 watts. AMD was able to achieve this goal with a slightly reduced base clock rate with reduced voltages at the same time. Nevertheless, the models are still able to keep the turbo clock high. This means that the performance losses remain small.

      Today's test candidate in the form of the FX-8320E shows that the performance is not far removed from its bigger brother. The mean across all benchmarks shows a difference of a meager two percentage points. The price is AMD FX-8320E at around 140 euros, the AMD FX-8370E at around 170 euros. In between there are still “legacy issues” like the FX-8350 from the 125 watt class, which AMD can certainly cancel without replacement, since the profit margin between the two newer models is quite low anyway.

      AMD promotes the fact that with the resources made available it is also possible to create very inexpensive PC systems that still provide sufficient performance. We were given this to support that MSI 970 Gaming motherboard made available. This is based on the cheaper AMD 970 chipset, which also requires less energy than the 990FX chipset and leaves little to be desired in terms of equipment. Paired with an FX-8320E, you have an investment of around 230 to 240 euros. A comparable Intel system with a Core i5-4440Processor and a similarly equipped MSI gaming motherboard would cost around 270 euros. The better power consumption would speak for the Intel system, but hardly any more.

      About David Maul

      David Maul is a qualified business IT specialist with a passion for hardware