In Rust, the FX-8320 is slower than the Core i9-12900K. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $201 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Up to 70% cheaper – $88.10 vs $289.00
- Up to 70% cheaper
- Up to 61% better value in Rust – $0.42 vs $1.07/FPS
- Up to 61% better value in Rust
Core i9-12900K
- Up to 28% faster in Rust – 268 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 28% faster in Rust
- Is 9 years and 11 days newer – Nov 04, 2021 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 9 years and 11 days newer
Rust FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core i9-12900K: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
209 FPS
78%
Min 1% FPS
41 FPS
49%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.42/FPS
100%
Core i9-12900K
Nov 4th, 2021
Average FPS
268 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
83 FPS
100%
Price, $
$289
30%
Value, $/FPS
$1.07/FPS
39%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-12900K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-12900K in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
50%
L3 Cache
8 MB
27%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
77%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-12900K
Nov 4th, 2021
Cores
16-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
91%
Turbo Frequency
5.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
4800 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-12900K Nov 4th, 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Nov 4th, 2021 |
$169.00 | MSRP | $599.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1700 |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 4800 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
| Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
