In Deathloop, the FX-8320E is slightly slower than the Celeron G1610 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $129 more expensive!
FX-8320E
- Is 1 year and 8 months newer – Sep 02, 2014 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 1 year and 8 months newer
Celeron G1610
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 224 vs 222 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
- Up to 72% cheaper – $49.00 vs $178.02
- Up to 72% cheaper
- Up to 74% better value in Deathloop – $0.21 vs $0.80/FPS
- Up to 74% better value in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 42% less energy – 55 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 42% less energy
Deathloop FPS Calculator
FX-8320E vs Celeron G1610: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Average FPS
222 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
167 FPS
99%
Price, $
$178.02
27%
Value, $/FPS
$0.8/FPS
26%
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
224 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
168 FPS
100%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.21/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320E vs Celeron G1610 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320E vs Celeron G1610 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
2 MB
25%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
81%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320E Sep 2nd, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| $147.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1155 |
| 95W | Power Consumption | 55W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Intel HD |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
