The FX-8320 is at least 2x slower gaming CPU than the Core i9-10900. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Advantages of the FX-8320
The Core i9-10900 is better in every way
Advantages of the Core i9-10900
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- Consumes up to 48% less energy – 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 20 vs 8 threads
FX-8320 vs Core i9-10900 for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
All items are out of stock.
Please refine your search results or...
Shoot us an email and we'll quickly add this!
Core i9-10900
Apr 30th, 2020
Average FPS
193
100%
Min 1% FPS
127
100%
Price, £
£646.39
100%
Value, £/FPS
£3.34/FPS
100%
FX-8320 vs Core i9-10900 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-8320 vs Core i9-10900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-10900 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
80%
L3 Cache
8 MB
40%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.7 GHz
71%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-10900
Apr 30th, 2020
Cores
10-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
80%
Turbo Frequency
5.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2933 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
FX-8320 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Core i9-10900 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
$169.00 | MSRP | $483.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
| Vishera | Codename | Comet Lake |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Performance | ||
| 8 | Cores | 10 |
| 8 | Threads | 20 |
3.5 GHz | Base Frequency | 2.8 GHz |
| 3.7 GHz | Turbo Frequency | 5.2 GHz |
| 8 MB | L3 Cache | 20 MB |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | DDR4 @ 2933 MHz |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
