Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F outperforms the cheaper FX-8320E on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8320E is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-10900F is 2067 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320E.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320E
- Up to 21% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $130.17 vs $164.51
- Up to 14% better value when playing The Last of Us Part I than Core i9-10900F - $1.14 vs $1.32 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 9% better in The Last of Us Part I than FX-8320E - 138 vs 127 FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than AMD FX-8320E - 65 vs 95 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320E - 20 vs 8 threads
The Last of Us Part I
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €144.49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 18168 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
138
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.32/FPS
86%
Price, €
€182.61
79%
FPS Winner
Buy for €182.61 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 18168 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 2nd, 2014
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320E | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Sep 2nd, 2014 | 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 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
16.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |