Testseek.com have collected 64 expert reviews of the AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz Socket AM3 Plus and the average rating is 82%. Scroll down and see all reviews for AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz Socket AM3 Plus.
March 2015
(82%)
64 Reviews
Average score from experts who have reviewed this product.
Great Overclocking with 990FX Chipset, Lower Power Consumption, Better Thermal Performance
Lower Base Freq. compared to its Counter Part (to be expected)
The FX 8320E really fits the need of those looking for a great budgeted gaming system or workstation. Offering 8 cores of processing power all for the price of $135.99 currently on Newegg.com is a great bargain. The bottom line here is if you are on a ...
Was this review helpful?
Award
-
Published: 2015-02-09, Author: Steven , review by: techspot.com
It should be clear that picking the right CPU depends on what you're going to do with it, so it isn't simply a matter of telling you which one is best. Intel tends to attract buyers who value the company's more powerful and efficient cores while plenty of...
Abstract: Back in September AMD announced new FX CPUs that included the FX-8370, FX-8370E, and FX-8320E. Back then we reviewed the FX-8370/FX-8370E CPUs under Linux but at the time didn't have our hands on the more affordable FX-8320E processor. In December AMD sen...
Published: 2015-01-21, Author: Mark , review by: overclock3d.net
When AMD first released CPUs for their AM3+ platform we at OC3D were not overly impressed, behind the hype of AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture was some very power hungry, hot running and under-performing CPUs. When AMD's second generation of FX CPUs, Pile...
Published: 2015-01-20, Author: Ian , review by: anandtech.com
Anyone building a new performance system today is not exactly spoiled for choice. On the super extreme end, native octo-core processors with threading are in the market. AMD's high end FX models start by comparison to the Core i5 line but boasts double th...
After spending time with both the AMD FX-8320E and the MSI 970 Gaming I came out with a mostly positive outlook. For starters, the board is packed full of features and is selling for a great price. When you combine the board with the FX-8320E you have a...
8 cores for not much cash, Overclockabilty, Strong performance in heavily threaded workloads, Potential performance win with DX12, No real reason to spend more for an FX9590
Far behind Intel on a percore basis, Powerhungry even at stock clock speeds, Aggressively throttles when overclocked via turbo multiplier
There is no “fastest processor”. When planning your rig, you'll need to make a choice between core count and clock speed . Up until now, the argument for choosing more cores has boiled down to whether or not you regularly perform tasks that spawn lots of ...
Excellent Multi-threading Performance, Very Reasonable Price, Strong Overclocking Potential
Lack Luster Single Threaded Performance
The new AMD FX 8320E is far from ground breaking. It does not really need to be either. Its multi-threading prowess would make the Intel i3 an easy target. The FX 8320E is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's mild 3.2 GHz base clock and low power label makes ...
I rather have four cores that are twice as fast per core opposed to 8 cores that are slower, so again I'll say this, personally I would have preferred a faster per core performing AMD quad-core processor. realistically, we have been working with the FX 8...
Abstract: That the fastest processors are currently made by Intel is not really a secret, but what is the best choice when you want to spend up to £ 50, £100 or £150? To answer that question we conducted a megatest of 57 current AMD and Intel CPUs. From two to...
