In Atomfall, the FX-8320 is slightly slower than the Core i5-9400F. However, it's a better value for money, as it's $32 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Up to 27% cheaper – $88.10 vs $119.99
- Up to 27% cheaper
- Up to 19% better value in Atomfall – $0.46 vs $0.57/FPS
- Up to 19% better value in Atomfall
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i5-9400F
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall – 210 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall
- Is 6 years and 2 months newer – Jan 08, 2019 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 6 years and 2 months newer
- Consumes up to 48% less energy – 65 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 48% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core i5-9400F: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
188 FPS
90%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
90%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.46/FPS
100%
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Average FPS
210 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
157 FPS
100%
Price, $
$119.99
73%
Value, $/FPS
$0.57/FPS
81%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core i5-9400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i5-9400F in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
89%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
98%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Cores
6-core
75%
L3 Cache
9 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
83%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-9400F Jan 8th, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 8th, 2019 |
| $169.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
