Key Differences
In short — Core i5-14400 outperforms the cheaper FX-8320 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8320 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-14400 is 4094 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 25% cheaper than Core i5-14400 - CA$264.27 vs CA$350.05
- Up to 6% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-14400 - CA$1.57 vs CA$1.67 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i5-14400
- Performs up to 25% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than FX-8320 - 210 vs 168 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 16 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
168
80%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.57/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$264.27
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$264.27 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 192 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2024
FPS
210
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.67/FPS
94%
Price, CA$
CA$350.05
75%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$350.05 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 192 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2024
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | Intel Core i5-14400 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 8th, 2024 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Vishera | Codename | Raptor Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.5 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
125 W | TDP | Not Available |
32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 25.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |