Key Differences
In short — Core i7-10700K 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 Core i7-10700K is 2067 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320E.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320E
- Up to 25% cheaper than Core i7-10700K - $178.02 vs $235.99
- Up to 19% better value when playing Red Dead Redemption 2 than Core i7-10700K - $1.19 vs $1.47 per FPS
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than Intel Core i7-10700K - 95 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i7-10700K
- Performs up to 8% better in Red Dead Redemption 2 than FX-8320E - 161 vs 149 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320E - 16 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320E doesn't have integrated graphics
Red Dead Redemption 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Buy for $178.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 10 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
161
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.47/FPS
80%
Price, $
$235.99
75%
FPS Winner
Buy for $235.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 11 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Sep 2nd, 2014
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320E | vs | Intel Core i7-10700K |
---|---|---|
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i7 |
Vishera | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.1 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 125 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
16.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |