Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i5-9400 outperforms the more expensive FX-8320E on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i5-9400 is 1508 days newer than the more expensive FX-8320E.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320E
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-9400 - 8 vs 6 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i5-9400
- Performs up to 11% better in A Plague Tale: Requiem than FX-8320E - 131 vs 118 FPS
- Up to 10% cheaper than FX-8320E - $117.65 vs $130.17
- Up to 18% better value when playing A Plague Tale: Requiem than FX-8320E - $1.0 vs $1.22 per FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than AMD FX-8320E - 65 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320E doesn't have integrated graphics
A Plague Tale: Requiem
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €144.49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 13556 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
FPS
131
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1/FPS
100%
Price, €
€130.59
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €130.59 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 13557 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 2nd, 2014
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320E | vs | Intel Core i5-9400 |
---|---|---|
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Oct 19th, 2018 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Vishera | Codename | Coffee Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 6 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
16.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD 630 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |