In Rust, the FX-8320E is slightly slower than the Core i7-9700F. However, it's a better value for money, as it's $69 cheaper!
FX-8320E
- Up to 28% cheaper – $178.02 vs $246.81
- Up to 28% cheaper
- Up to 20% better value in Rust – $0.85 vs $1.06/FPS
- Up to 20% better value in Rust
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i7-9700F
- Up to 11% faster in Rust – 232 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 11% faster in Rust
- Is 4 years and 7 months newer – Apr 23, 2019 vs Sep 02, 2014
- Is 4 years and 7 months newer
- Consumes up to 32% less energy – 65 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 32% less energy
Rust FPS Calculator
FX-8320E vs Core i7-9700F: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Average FPS
209 FPS
90%
Min 1% FPS
41 FPS
69%
Price, $
$178.02
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.85/FPS
100%
Core i7-9700F
Apr 23rd, 2019
Average FPS
232 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
59 FPS
100%
Price, $
$246.81
72%
Value, $/FPS
$1.06/FPS
80%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320E vs Core i7-9700F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320E vs Core i7-9700F in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
67%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
85%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
70%
Core i7-9700F
Apr 23rd, 2019
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3 GHz
94%
Turbo Frequency
4.7 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320E Sep 2nd, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i7-9700F Apr 23rd, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 2nd, 2014 | Released | Apr 23rd, 2019 |
$147.00 | MSRP | $333.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
