In Rust, the FX-8320E is slower than the Core i9-13900K. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $371 cheaper!
FX-8320E
- Up to 68% cheaper – $178.02 vs $548.89
- Up to 68% cheaper
- Up to 57% better value in Rust – $0.85 vs $1.96/FPS
- Up to 57% better value in Rust
- Consumes up to 24% less energy – 95 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 24% less energy
Core i9-13900K
- Up to 34% faster in Rust – 280 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 34% faster in Rust
- Is 8 years and 25 days newer – Sep 27, 2022 vs Sep 02, 2014
- Is 8 years and 25 days newer
Rust FPS Calculator
FX-8320E vs Core i9-13900K: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Average FPS
209 FPS
75%
Min 1% FPS
41 FPS
45%
Price, $
$178.02
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.85/FPS
100%
Core i9-13900K
Sep 27th, 2022
Average FPS
280 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
91 FPS
100%
Price, $
$548.89
32%
Value, $/FPS
$1.96/FPS
43%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320E vs Core i9-13900K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320E vs Core i9-13900K in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Cores
8-core
33%
L3 Cache
8 MB
22%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
69%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
33%
Core i9-13900K
Sep 27th, 2022
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3 GHz
94%
Turbo Frequency
5.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320E Sep 2nd, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-13900K Sep 27th, 2022 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 2nd, 2014 | Released | Sep 27th, 2022 |
$147.00 | MSRP | $589.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1700 |
95 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
| Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
