In Battlefield 6, the FX-8320 is much slower than the Core i9-14900. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $482 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Up to 85% cheaper – $88.10 vs $569.99
- Up to 85% cheaper
- Up to 67% better value in Battlefield 6 – $1.44 vs $4.41/FPS
- Up to 67% better value in Battlefield 6
Core i9-14900
- Up to 111% faster in Battlefield 6 – 129 vs 61 FPS
- Up to 111% faster in Battlefield 6
- Is 11 years and 2 months newer – Jan 08, 2024 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 11 years and 2 months newer
- Consumes up to 48% less energy – 65 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 48% less energy
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core i9-14900: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
61 FPS
47%
Min 1% FPS
46 FPS
47%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.44/FPS
100%
Core i9-14900
Jan 8th, 2024
Average FPS
129 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
97 FPS
100%
Price, $
$569.99
15%
Value, $/FPS
$4.41/FPS
33%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-14900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-14900 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
69%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-14900
Jan 8th, 2024
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2 GHz
57%
Turbo Frequency
5.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-14900 Jan 8th, 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 8th, 2024 |
$169.00 | MSRP | $549.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1700 |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
