Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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 Ryzen 9 7950X3D is 3046 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320E.
Advantages of FX-8320E
- Up to 76% cheaper than Ryzen 9 7950X3D - $160.38 vs $671.13
- Up to 59% better value when playing Rust than Ryzen 9 7950X3D - $1.04 vs $2.51 per FPS
- Consumes up to 21% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D - 95 vs 120 Watts
Advantages of Ryzen 9 7950X3D
- Performs up to 73% better in Rust than FX-8320E - 267 vs 154 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320E - 32 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320E doesn't have integrated graphics
Rust
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Buy for €160.38 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7115 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
267
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.51/FPS
41%
Price, €
€671.13
23%
FPS Winner
Buy for €671.13 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7115 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Sep 2nd, 2014
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
FX-8320E | vs | Ryzen 9 7950X3D |
---|---|---|
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Vishera | Codename | Raphael |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.7 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 120 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
16.0x | Multiplier | 42.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |