The 5800X3D has the same core architecture as the 5800X but it runs at 11% lower base and 4% lower boost clocks. The lower clocks are in exchange for an extra 64MB of cache (96MB up from 32MB) and around 40% more money. For most real-world tasks performance is comparable to the 5800X. Cache sensitive scenarios such as low res. canned game benchmarks with a 3090-Ti ($2,000 USD) benefit at the cost of everything else. Be wary of sponsored reviews with cherry picked games that showcase the wins, conveniently ignore frame drops and gloss over the losses. Also watch out for AMD’s army of Neanderthal social media accounts on reddit, forums and youtube, they will be singing their own praises as usual. Instead of focusing on real-world performance, AMD’s marketers aim to dupe consumers with bankrolled headlines. The same tactics were used with the Radeon 5000 series GPUs. Zen 4 needs to bring substantial IPC improvements for all workloads, rather than overpriced "3D" marketing gimmicks. New PC builders have little reason to look further than the $260 12600K which, at a fraction of the price, offers better all round performance in gaming, desktop and workstation applications. Users with an existing AM4 build should wait just a few more months for better performance at lower prices with Raptor Lake or even Zen 4. The marketers selling expensive “3D” upgrades today will quickly move onto Zen 4 (3D) leaving unfortunate buyers stuck on an overpriced, 6 year old, dead-end, platform. [Mar '22CPUPro]
The FX-8320E is a Vishera eight core processor based on AMD’s Piledriver architecture. The ‘E’ in the FX-8320E denotes energy efficiency with the FX-8320E boasting a TDP of 95 Watts which is relatively low for FX processors. The FX-8320E was launched in September 2014 at the same time as the FX-8370E. Comparing the 8370E and 8320E shows that the performance profiles are similar with the 25% more expensive 8370E edging ahead, particularly on single core workloads. The 8370E is clocked slightly higher with base/turbo frequencies of 3.3/4.3 GHz versus the 8320E’s 3.2/4.0 GHz. Overall the 8320E scores a mediocre effective speed of 70. Whilst this is sufficient for the majority of desktop applications: web-surfing, word-processing and playing movies, better single-core performance is offered by any number of Intel processors. [Dec '14CPUPro]
We calculate effective speed which measures real world performance for typical users. Effective speed is adjusted by current prices to yield a value for money rating. Our calculated values are checked against thousands of individual user ratings. The customizable table below combines these factors to bring you the definitive list of top CPUs. [CPUPro]
Welcome to our PC speed test tool. UserBenchmark will test your PC and compare the results to other users with the same components. You can quickly size up your PC, identify hardware problems and explore the best value for money upgrades.