Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 5950X 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 Ryzen 9 5950X is 2935 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of FX-8320
- Up to 36% cheaper than Ryzen 9 5950X - CA$317.14 vs CA$499.00
- Up to 12% better value when playing New World than Ryzen 9 5950X - CA$3.24 vs CA$3.70 per FPS
Advantages of Ryzen 9 5950X
- Performs up to 38% better in New World than FX-8320 - 135 vs 98 FPS
- Consumes up to 16% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 105 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 32 vs 8 threads
New World
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
98
73%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$3.24/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$317.14
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$317.14 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 121 minutes ago
Desktop • Nov 5th, 2020
FPS
135
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$3.7/FPS
88%
Price, CA$
CA$499
63%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$499 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 121 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Nov 5th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
FX-8320 | vs | Ryzen 9 5950X |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Nov 5th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Vishera | Codename | Vermeer |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.9 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 105 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |