Key Differences
In short — Core i9-12900K outperforms the cheaper FX-8320E on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8320E is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-12900K is 2620 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320E.
Advantages of FX-8320E
- Up to 37% cheaper than Core i9-12900K - $178.02 vs $283.49
- Up to 28% better value when playing ARK: Survival Evolved than Core i9-12900K - $1.53 vs $2.13 per FPS
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than Intel Core i9-12900K - 95 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of Core i9-12900K
- Performs up to 15% better in ARK: Survival Evolved than FX-8320E - 133 vs 116 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320E - 24 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320E doesn't have integrated graphics
ARK: Survival Evolved
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Buy for $178.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77 minutes ago
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
FPS
133
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.13/FPS
72%
Price, $
$283.49
62%
FPS Winner
Buy for $283.49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 83 minutes ago
Trending Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Sep 2nd, 2014
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
FX-8320E | vs | Core i9-12900K |
---|---|---|
Sep 2nd, 2014 | Release Date | Nov 4th, 2021 |
FX | Collection | Core i9 |
Vishera | Codename | Alder Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 125 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
16.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |