Buy on Amazon
€91.91
In Stock
AvailabilityMSRP $169
Availability
MSRP $169
AvailabilityMSRP $799
Availability
MSRP $799
Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 5950X 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 Ryzen 9 5950X is 2935 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of FX-8320
- Up to 70% cheaper than Ryzen 9 5950X - $82.80 vs $279.19
- Up to 68% better value when playing Dead Space than Ryzen 9 5950X - $0.63 vs $1.95 per FPS
Advantages of Ryzen 9 5950X
- Performs up to 10% better in Dead Space than FX-8320 - 159 vs 145 FPS
- Consumes up to 16% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 105 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 32 vs 8 threads
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
OEM AMD FX-8320 Octa-core (8 Core) 3.50 GHz Processor - Socket AM3+ Pack
Buy for €91.91 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 19 minutes ago
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-thread unlocked desktop processor
Buy for €309.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 19 minutes ago
Trending Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
FX-8320
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Ryzen 9 5950X
Desktop • Nov 5th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
FX-8320 | vs | Ryzen 9 5950X |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Nov 5th, 2020 |
| FX | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
| Vishera | Codename | Vermeer |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 8 | Cores | 16 |
| 8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
| 3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.9 GHz |
| 125 W | TDP | 105 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
| 17.5x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | None |
| Yes | Overclockable | Yes |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
