Key Differences
In short — Core i3-10320 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 Core i3-10320 is 2746 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 32% cheaper than Core i3-10320 - $95.0 vs $139.99
- Up to 11% better value when playing Rust than Core i3-10320 - $0.62 vs $0.7 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i3-10320
- Performs up to 31% better in Rust than FX-8320 - 201 vs 154 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Rust
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
154
76.61691542288557%
Value, $/FPS
$0.62/FPS
100%
Price, $
$95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 84 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
201
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.7/FPS
88.57142857142858%
Price, $
$139.99
67%
FPS Winner
Buy for $139.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 84 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | Intel Core i3-10320 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i3 |
Vishera | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 8 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |