In Deathloop, the FX-8320 is slightly slower than the Core Ultra 9 285K. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $417 cheaper!
FX-8320
- Up to 83% cheaper – $88.10 vs $505.16
- Up to 83% cheaper
- Up to 81% better value in Deathloop – $0.39 vs $2.04/FPS
- Up to 81% better value in Deathloop
Core Ultra 9 285K
- Up to 11% faster in Deathloop – 247 vs 222 FPS
- Up to 11% faster in Deathloop
- Is 12 years and 1 day newer – Oct 24, 2024 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 12 years and 1 day newer
Deathloop FPS Calculator
FX-8320 vs Core Ultra 9 285K: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
222 FPS
90%
Min 1% FPS
167 FPS
90%
Price, $
$88.1
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.39/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 9 285K
Oct 24th, 2024
Average FPS
247 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
185 FPS
100%
Price, $
$505.16
17%
Value, $/FPS
$2.04/FPS
19%
![Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Tetracosa-core [24 Core] 3.70 GHz Processor - OEM Pack - Box](https://howmanyfps.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/static/cpus/B0DFKC99VL.jpg)
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320 vs Core Ultra 9 285K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320 vs Core Ultra 9 285K in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
33%
L3 Cache
8 MB
22%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
95%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
70%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core Ultra 9 285K
Oct 24th, 2024
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
5.7 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 9 285K Oct 24th, 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Oct 24th, 2024 |
$169.00 | MSRP | $589.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1851 |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
| Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
