In Deathloop, the FX-8320 is slightly slower than the Core Ultra 7 265. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $259 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Up to 75% cheaper – $88.10 vs $347.55
- Up to 75% cheaper
- Up to 73% better value in Deathloop – $0.39 vs $1.43/FPS
- Up to 73% better value in Deathloop
Core Ultra 7 265
- Up to 9% faster in Deathloop – 242 vs 222 FPS
- Up to 9% faster in Deathloop
- Is 12 years and 2 months newer – Jan 07, 2025 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 12 years and 2 months newer
- Consumes up to 48% less energy – 65 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 48% less energy
Deathloop FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core Ultra 7 265: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
222 FPS
92%
Min 1% FPS
166 FPS
92%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.39/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 7 265
Jan 7th, 2025
Average FPS
242 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
181 FPS
100%
Price, $
$347.55
25%
Value, $/FPS
$1.43/FPS
27%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core Ultra 7 265 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core Ultra 7 265 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
40%
L3 Cache
8 MB
27%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
75%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core Ultra 7 265
Jan 7th, 2025
Cores
20-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
69%
Turbo Frequency
5.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 7 265 Jan 7th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 7th, 2025 |
$169.00 | MSRP | $394.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1851 |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
