Key Differences
In short — FX-8320 outperforms Phenom X4 9550 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-8320 is 1671 days newer than Phenom X4 9550.
Advantages of AMD Phenom X4 9550
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 95 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Performs up to 1% better in Forza Horizon 4 than Phenom X4 9550 - 296 vs 294 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Phenom X4 9550 - 8 vs 4 threads
Forza Horizon 4
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Max
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Max
Phenom X4 9550
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
FX-8320
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Phenom X4 9550
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
Single-Core
234
50.98039215686274%
Multi-Core
712
39.14238592633315%
AMD Phenom X4 9550 | vs | AMD FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 27th, 2008 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| Phenom X4 | Collection | FX |
| Agena | Codename | Vishera |
| AMD Socket AM2+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 8 |
| 4 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 125 W |
| 65 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
| 11.0x | Multiplier | 17.5x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
