The FX-8320 is at least 2x slower gaming CPU than the Core i9-13900F. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Advantages of the FX-8320
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU as it has integrated graphics
Advantages of the Core i9-13900F
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- Consumes up to 48% less energy – 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 32 vs 8 threads
FX-8320 vs Core i9-13900F
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
All items are out of stock.
Core i9-13900F
Jan 4th, 2023
Average FPS
237
100%
Min 1% FPS
162
100%
Price, €
Out of Stock
Value, €/FPS
Not Available
All items are out of stock.
FX-8320 vs Core i9-13900F in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games, click on a game to change it
The FPS you'll get in saved games, click on a game to change it
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-13900F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-13900F in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
33%
L3 Cache
8 MB
22%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
71%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-13900F
Jan 4th, 2023
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2 GHz
57%
Turbo Frequency
5.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
FX-8320 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Core i9-13900F |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
$1.69 | MSRP | $5.24 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
| Vishera | Codename | Raptor Lake-S |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Performance | ||
| 8 | Cores | 24 |
| 8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Frequency | 2.0 GHz |
| 4.0 GHz | Turbo Frequency | 5.6 GHz |
| 8 MB | L3 Cache | 36 MB |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | DDR4 @ 3200 MHz, DDR5 @ 5600 MHz |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | No |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
