In Rust, the FX-8320 is quite a bit slower than the Core i9-13900KS. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $664 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Up to 88% cheaper – $88.10 vs $751.89
- Up to 88% cheaper
- Up to 84% better value in Rust – $0.42 vs $2.64/FPS
- Up to 84% better value in Rust
- Consumes up to 17% less energy – 125 vs 150 Watts
- Consumes up to 17% less energy
Core i9-13900KS
- Up to 36% faster in Rust – 284 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 36% faster in Rust
- Is 10 years and 2 months newer – Jan 12, 2023 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 10 years and 2 months newer
Rust FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core i9-13900KS: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
209 FPS
74%
Min 1% FPS
41 FPS
44%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.42/FPS
100%
Core i9-13900KS
Jan 12th, 2023
Average FPS
284 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
94 FPS
100%
Price, $
$751.89
11%
Value, $/FPS
$2.64/FPS
16%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-13900KS in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-13900KS in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
33%
L3 Cache
8 MB
22%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
67%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-13900KS
Jan 12th, 2023
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
91%
Turbo Frequency
6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-13900KS Jan 12th, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 12th, 2023 |
$169.00 | MSRP | $699.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1700 |
125 W | Power Consumption | 150 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
| Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
