Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F 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 i9-10900F is 2746 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 33% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $127.96 vs $190.11
- Up to 4% better value when playing Starfield than Core i9-10900F - $3.23 vs $3.35 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 43% better in Starfield than FX-8320 - 63 vs 44 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 20 vs 8 threads
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €142.04 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 215 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
63
100%
Value, €/FPS
€3.35/FPS
96%
Price, €
€211.02
67%
FPS Winner
Buy for €211.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 216 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i9 |
Vishera | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 20 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |