Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F 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 i9-10900F is 2067 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320E.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320E
- Up to 21% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $178.02 vs $225.0
- Up to 8% better value when playing Battlefield 2042 than Core i9-10900F - $1.24 vs $1.35 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 17% better in Battlefield 2042 than FX-8320E - 167 vs 143 FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than AMD FX-8320E - 65 vs 95 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320E - 20 vs 8 threads
Battlefield 2042
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $178.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 34 minutes ago
Buy for $225 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 39 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 2nd, 2014
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320E | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i9 |
Vishera | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 20 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
16.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |