Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900K 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 i9-10900K is 2067 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320E.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320E
- Up to 57% cheaper than Core i9-10900K - $178.02 vs $415.0
- Up to 28% better value when playing F1 23 than Core i9-10900K - $1.21 vs $1.69 per FPS
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than Intel Core i9-10900K - 95 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900K
- Performs up to 67% better in F1 23 than FX-8320E - 245 vs 147 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320E - 20 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320E doesn't have integrated graphics
F1 23
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Buy for $178.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 201 minutes ago
Buy for $415 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 202 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Sep 2nd, 2014
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320E | vs | Intel Core i9-10900K |
---|---|---|
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 | 3.7 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.3 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 125 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
16.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |