In Control, the FX-8320 is slightly slower than the Core i7-5960X. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $167 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Up to 65% cheaper – $88.10 vs $255.05
- Up to 65% cheaper
- Up to 66% better value in Control – $0.35 vs $1.03/FPS
- Up to 66% better value in Control
- Consumes up to 11% less energy – 125 vs 140 Watts
- Consumes up to 11% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i7-5960X
- Up to 1% faster in Control – 247 vs 245 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Control
- Is 1 year and 10 months newer – Sep 01, 2014 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 1 year and 10 months newer
Control FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core i7-5960X: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
245 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
99%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.35/FPS
100%
Core i7-5960X
Sep 1st, 2014
Average FPS
247 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
162 FPS
100%
Price, $
$255.05
34%
Value, $/FPS
$1.03/FPS
34%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core i7-5960X in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i7-5960X in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
40%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i7-5960X
Sep 1st, 2014
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3 GHz
86%
Turbo Frequency
3.5 GHz
88%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i7-5960X Sep 1st, 2014 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2014 |
| $169.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA2011-3 |
125W | Power Consumption | 140W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2133 MHz (DDR4) |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
