In The Last of Us Part II, the FX-8320 is slightly slower than the Core i3-330M. However, it's a slightly better value for money, as it's $11 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Is 2 years and 9 months newer – Oct 23, 2012 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 years and 9 months newer
- Up to 11% cheaper – $88.10 vs $98.95
- Up to 11% cheaper
- Up to 4% better value in The Last of Us Part II – $0.43 vs $0.45/FPS
- Up to 4% better value in The Last of Us Part II
Core i3-330M
- Up to 8% faster in The Last of Us Part II – 218 vs 202 FPS
- Up to 8% faster in The Last of Us Part II
- Consumes up to 72% less energy – 35 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 72% less energy
The Last of Us Part II FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core i3-330M: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
202 FPS
93%
Min 1% FPS
151 FPS
93%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.43/FPS
100%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
218 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
163 FPS
100%
Price, $
$98.95
89%
Value, $/FPS
$0.45/FPS
96%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core i3-330M in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i3-330M in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
3 MB
38%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
61%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| $169.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Laptop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGAG1 |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 35 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1066 MHz (DDR3) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
