In Atomfall, the FX-8320E is slightly slower than the Core i7-980X. However, it's a slightly better value for money, as it's $12 cheaper!
FX-8320E
- Is 4 years and 5 months newer – Sep 02, 2014 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 4 years and 5 months newer
- Up to 6% cheaper – $178.02 vs $189.95
- Up to 6% cheaper
- Up to 5% better value in Atomfall – $0.94 vs $0.99/FPS
- Up to 5% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 27% less energy – 95 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 27% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i7-980X
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall – 191 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-8320E vs Core i7-980X: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Average FPS
188 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
99%
Price, $
$178.02
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.94/FPS
100%
Core i7-980X
Mar 16th, 2010
Average FPS
191 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
143 FPS
100%
Price, $
$189.95
93%
Value, $/FPS
$0.99/FPS
95%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320E vs Core i7-980X in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320E vs Core i7-980X in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
67%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
96%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Core i7-980X
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
6-core
75%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.333 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
90%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320E Sep 2nd, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i7-980X Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| $147.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1366 |
95W | Power Consumption | 130W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
