Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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 7950X3D is 3725 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of FX-8320
- Up to 71% cheaper than Ryzen 9 7950X3D - CA$317.14 vs CA$1099.99
- Up to 65% better value when playing Deathloop than Ryzen 9 7950X3D - CA$1.89 vs CA$5.45 per FPS
Advantages of Ryzen 9 7950X3D
- Performs up to 20% better in Deathloop than FX-8320 - 202 vs 168 FPS
- Consumes up to 4% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 120 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 32 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Deathloop
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
168
83%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.89/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$317.14
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$317.14 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 89 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
202
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$5.45/FPS
35%
Price, CA$
CA$1099.99
28%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$1,099.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 89 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
FX-8320 | vs | Ryzen 9 7950X3D |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Vishera | Codename | Raphael |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.7 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 120 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 42.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |