Key Differences
In short — FX-8320 outperforms the cheaper FX-6100 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-6100 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing FX-8320 is 377 days newer than the cheaper FX-6100.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Performs up to 16% better in League of Legends than FX-6100 - 57 vs 49 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6100 - 8 vs 6 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-6100
- Up to 24% cheaper than FX-8320 - CA$84.01 vs CA$111.14
- Up to 12% better value when playing League of Legends than FX-8320 - CA$1.71 vs CA$1.95 per FPS
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 95 vs 125 Watts
League of Legends
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
57
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.95/FPS
87.6923076923077%
Price, CA$
CA$111.14
75%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$111.14 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2573 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
FPS
49
85.96491228070175%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.71/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$84.01
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$84.01 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2572 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
AMD FX-8320 | vs | AMD FX-6100 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
FX | Collection | FX |
Vishera | Codename | Zambezi |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 6 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.3 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 95 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 16.5x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |