The FX-8320E is the comparison's loser – it's a slower gaming CPU than the Celeron G3900 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $128.47 more expensive!
Advantages of the FX-8320E
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of the Celeron G3900
- A much faster CPU for gaming
- Up to 80% cheaper – $31.91 vs $160.38
- A much better value for money for gaming
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 51 vs 95 Watts
FX-8320E vs Celeron G3900 for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
170
100%
Min 1% FPS
114
100%
Price, €
€31.91
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.18/FPS
100%
FX-8320E vs Celeron G3900 in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320E vs Celeron G3900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320E vs Celeron G3900 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
87%
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
4 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
87%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
FX-8320E | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Celeron G3900 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
| $147.00 | MSRP | Not Available |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
| Vishera | Codename | Skylake |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 51 W |
| Performance | ||
8 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.2 GHz | Base Frequency | 2.8 GHz |
| 4.0 GHz | Turbo Frequency | Non-Turbo |
8 MB | L3 Cache | 4 MB |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 @ 1866 MHz | RAM | DDR3 @ 2133 MHz, DDR4 @ 2133 MHz |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 510 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
