0.4
Check Prices $146.99
0
Check Prices $82
Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game FX-8320E Celeron J1900 2.0GHz
Cyberpunk 2077 10% 297%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 48% 434%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 6% 284%
Hitman 3 48% 434%
Grand Theft Auto VI 80% 552%
FIFA 21 3% 271%
Far Cry 6 73% 526%
Genshin Impact 17% 200%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 71% 516%
Watch Dogs Legion 48% 434%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD FX-8320E is massively better than the Intel Celeron J1900 2.0GHz when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

The FX-8320E was released less than a year after the Celeron J1900 2.0GHz, and so they are likely to have similar levels of support, and similarly optimized performance when running the latest games.

The FX-8320E has 4 more cores than the Celeron J1900 2.0GHz. 8 cores is probably excessive if you mean to just run the latest games, as games are not yet able to harness this many cores. The cores in the Celeron J1900 2.0GHz is more than enough for gaming purposes. However, if you intend on running a server with the FX-8320E, it would seem to be a decent choice.

The FX-8320E has 4 more threads than the Celeron J1900 2.0GHz. Both CPUs have one thread per physical core.

Multiple threads are useful for improving the performance of multi-threaded applications. Additional cores and their accompanying thread will always be beneficial for multi-threaded applications. Hyperthreading will be beneficial for applications optimized for it, but it may slow others down. For games, the number of threads is largely irrelevant, as long as you have at least 2 cores (preferably 4), and hyperthreading can sometimes even hit performance.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The FX-8320E and Celeron J1900 2.0GHz are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the FX-8320E has a 1.2 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. In this case, however, the difference is probably a good indicator that the FX-8320E is superior.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The FX-8320E has a 6144 KB bigger L2 cache than the Celeron J1900 2.0GHz, and although the Celeron J1900 2.0GHz does not appear to have an L3 cache, its larger L2 cache means that it wins out in this area.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

The Celeron J1900 2.0GHz has a 85 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the FX-8320E, and was created with a 10 nm smaller manufacturing technology. What this means is the Celeron J1900 2.0GHz will consume significantly less power and consequently produce less heat, enabling more prolonged computational tasks with fewer adverse effects. This will lower your yearly electricity bill significantly, as well as prevent you from having to invest in extra cooling mechanisms (unless you overclock).

The Celeron J1900 2.0GHz has an on-board GPU, which means that it will be capable of running basic graphics applications (i.e., games) without the need for a dedicated graphics card. The FX-8320E, however, does not, and you will probably have to look for a dedicated card if you wish to use it at all.

For in-depth GPU comparisons with the Intel HD Graphics Desktop (Bay Trail), click on the following GPU overview comparison icon (visible throughout Game-Debate), and choose a GPU from the list to compare against:

On-board GPUs tend to be fairly awful in comparison to dedicated cards from the likes of AMD or Nvidia, but as they are built into the CPU, they also tend to be cheaper and require far less power to run (this makes them a good choice for laptops). We would recommend a dedicated card for running the latest games, but integrated GPUs are improving all the time and casual gamers may find less recent games perform perfectly acceptably.

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameVisheraBay Trail-D
MoBo SocketSocket AM3+BGA 1170
Notebook CPUnono
Release Date01 Sep 201401 Nov 2013
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores8vs4
CPU Threads8vs4
Clock Speed3.2 GHzvs2 GHz
Turbo Frequency4 GHzvs2.41 GHz
Max TDP95 Wvs10 W
Lithography32 nmvs22 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs64 Bit
Max Temperature-vs105°C
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size384 KBvs224 KB
L2 Cache Size8192 KBvs2048 KB
L3 Cache Size8 MBvs-
Max Memory Size-vs8 GB
Memory Channels-vs2
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

GraphicsIntel HD Graphics Desktop (Bay Trail)
Base GPU Frequency-vs311 MHz
Max GPU Frequency-vs896 MHz
DirectX-vs11.1
Displays Supported-vs-
Comparison

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewFX-8320E is an energy efficient CPU based on the 32nm Piledriver architecture.

It offers 8 Physical Cores (8 Logical), initially clocked at 3.5GHz, which may go up to 4.0GHz and 8MB of L3 Cache.
Among its many features, Turbo Core and Virtualization are activated and the clock multiplier is unlocked, meaning it can be overclocked easily.

The processor DOES NOT integrated any graphics. and has a rated board TDP of 95W.

Its rank and specifications are still predicted.
Celeron J1900 2.0GHz is a budget CPU based on the 22nm, Silvermont architecture.

It offers 4 Physical Cores (4 Logical), initially clocked at 2.0GHz, which may go up to 2.41GHz and 2MB of L2 Cache.
Among its many features, Burst Performance and Virtualization are activated.

The processor integrates very weak Graphics called Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), with 4 Execution Units, initially clocked at 688MHz, which may go up to 854MHz and share the L2 Cache and system RAM with the processor.
Both the processor and integrated graphics have a rated board TDP of 10W.

Its performance is below the average and so most demanding games will not run optimally.