Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 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 Threadripper 2920X is 2171 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 76% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - $95.0 vs $398.88
- Up to 72% better value when playing Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege than Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - $0.21 vs $0.74 per FPS
- Consumes up to 31% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - 125 vs 180 Watts
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
- Performs up to 22% better in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege than FX-8320 - 542 vs 445 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 24 vs 8 threads
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
445
82.10332103321034%
Value, $/FPS
$0.21/FPS
100%
Price, $
$95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 3659 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
FPS
542
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.74/FPS
28.37837837837838%
Price, $
$398.88
23%
FPS Winner
Buy for $398.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 3664 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 3rd, 2018 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Vishera | Codename | Colfax |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 12 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 180 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |