In Rust, the FX-8320 is slower than the Core i9-14900F. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $388 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Up to 81% cheaper – $88.10 vs $476.00
- Up to 81% cheaper
- Up to 75% better value in Rust – $0.42 vs $1.71/FPS
- Up to 75% better value in Rust
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i9-14900F
- Up to 33% faster in Rust – 278 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 33% faster in Rust
- Is 11 years and 2 months newer – Jan 08, 2024 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 11 years and 2 months newer
- Consumes up to 48% less energy – 65 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 48% less energy
Rust FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core i9-14900F: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
209 FPS
75%
Min 1% FPS
41 FPS
46%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.42/FPS
100%
Core i9-14900F
Jan 8th, 2024
Average FPS
278 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
90 FPS
100%
Price, $
$476
18%
Value, $/FPS
$1.71/FPS
25%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-14900F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core i9-14900F 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
69%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-14900F
Jan 8th, 2024
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2 GHz
57%
Turbo Frequency
5.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-14900F Jan 8th, 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 8th, 2024 |
$169.00 | MSRP | $524.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1700 |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
