In Battlefield 6, the FX-8320E is slightly slower than the Core i3-4150T and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $156 more expensive!
FX-8320E
- Is 4 months and 2 days newer – Sep 02, 2014 vs May 01, 2014
- Is 4 months and 2 days newer
Core i3-4150T
- Up to 7% faster in Battlefield 6 – 65 vs 61 FPS
- Up to 7% faster in Battlefield 6
- Up to 88% cheaper – $21.76 vs $178.02
- Up to 88% cheaper
- Up to 89% better value in Battlefield 6 – $0.33 vs $2.91/FPS
- Up to 89% better value in Battlefield 6
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 35 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% less energy
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
FX-8320E vs Core i3-4150T: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Average FPS
61 FPS
94%
Min 1% FPS
46 FPS
96%
Price, $
$178.02
12%
Value, $/FPS
$2.91/FPS
11%
Core i3-4150T
May 1st, 2014
Average FPS
65 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
48 FPS
100%
Price, $
$21.76
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.33/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320E vs Core i3-4150T in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320E vs Core i3-4150T 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 i3-4150T
May 1st, 2014
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
3 MB
38%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
91%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320E Sep 2nd, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-4150T May 1st, 2014 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Released | May 1st, 2014 |
| $147.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1150 |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 35 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Intel HD 4400 |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
