Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i7-6900K outperforms the more expensive FX-8320 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i7-6900K is 1316 days newer than the more expensive FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Core i7-6900K - 125 vs 140 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i7-6900K
- Performs up to 10% better in Battlefield IV than FX-8320 - 407 vs 371 FPS
- Up to 31% cheaper than FX-8320 - $87.75 vs $127.96
- Up to 37% better value when playing Battlefield IV than FX-8320 - $0.24 vs $0.38 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 16 vs 8 threads
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €142.04 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 18 minutes ago
Desktop • May 31st, 2016
FPS
407
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.24/FPS
100%
Price, €
€97.4
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €97.4 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 19 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • May 31st, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | Intel Core i7-6900K |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | May 31st, 2016 |
FX | Collection | Core i7 |
Vishera | Codename | Broadwell-E |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 140 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |