Key Differences
In short — FX-8320 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-8320 is 1671 days newer than Phenom X4 9650.
Advantages of AMD Phenom X4 9650
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 95 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Performs up to 3% better in Apex Legends than Phenom X4 9650 - 256 vs 249 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Phenom X4 9650 - 8 vs 4 threads
Apex Legends
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Phenom X4 9650 | vs | AMD FX-8320 |
---|---|---|
Mar 27th, 2008 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
Phenom X4 | Collection | FX |
Agena | Codename | Vishera |
AMD Socket AM2+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
4 | Threads | 8 |
2.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 125 W |
65 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
11.5x | Multiplier | 17.5x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |