In Deathloop, the FX-8320E is slightly slower than the Core i3-330M and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $79 more expensive!
FX-8320E
- Is 4 years and 7 months newer – Sep 02, 2014 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 4 years and 7 months newer
Core i3-330M
- Up to 3% faster in Deathloop – 228 vs 222 FPS
- Up to 3% faster in Deathloop
- Up to 44% cheaper – $98.95 vs $178.02
- Up to 44% cheaper
- Up to 46% better value in Deathloop – $0.43 vs $0.80/FPS
- Up to 46% better value in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 35 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% less energy
Deathloop FPS Calculator
FX-8320E vs Core i3-330M: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Average FPS
222 FPS
97%
Min 1% FPS
167 FPS
98%
Price, $
$178.02
55%
Value, $/FPS
$0.8/FPS
54%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
228 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
171 FPS
100%
Price, $
$98.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.43/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320E vs Core i3-330M in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320E vs Core i3-330M 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%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
3 MB
38%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
67%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
57%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320E Sep 2nd, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| $147.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Laptop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGAG1 |
| 95W | Power Consumption | 35W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 1066 MHz (DDR3) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
