In The Last of Us Part II, the Core i9-9900T is slightly slower than the FX-8300 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $336 more expensive!
Core i9-9900T
- Is 6 years and 5 months newer – Apr 23, 2019 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 6 years and 5 months newer
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 35 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% less energy
FX-8300
- Up to 12% faster in The Last of Us Part II – 193 vs 173 FPS
- Up to 12% faster in The Last of Us Part II
- Up to 76% cheaper – $106.06 vs $442.00
- Up to 76% cheaper
- Up to 79% better value in The Last of Us Part II – $0.54 vs $2.55/FPS
- Up to 79% better value in The Last of Us Part II
The Last of Us Part II FPS Calculator
Core i9-9900T vs FX-8300: Comparison of performance and price
Core i9-9900T
Apr 23rd, 2019
Average FPS
173 FPS
90%
Min 1% FPS
130 FPS
90%
Price, $
$442
23%
Value, $/FPS
$2.55/FPS
21%
FX-8300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
193 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
145 FPS
100%
Price, $
$106.06
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.54/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i9-9900T vs FX-8300 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i9-9900T vs FX-8300 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i9-9900T
Apr 23rd, 2019
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
16 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.1 GHz
64%
Turbo Frequency
4.4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
FX-8300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
50%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.9 GHz
89%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
70%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i9-9900T Apr 23rd, 2019 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-8300 Oct 23rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Apr 23rd, 2019 | Released | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| $423.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1151 | Socket | AM3+ |
35 W | Power Consumption | 95 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2666 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | 1866 MHz (DDR3) |
| UHD Graphics 630 | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
