In Rust, the FX-8320E is quite a bit slower than the Core Ultra 9 285. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $385 cheaper!
FX-8320E
- Up to 68% cheaper – $178.02 vs $563.41
- Up to 68% cheaper
- Up to 57% better value in Rust – $0.85 vs $1.98/FPS
- Up to 57% better value in Rust
Core Ultra 9 285
- Up to 36% faster in Rust – 284 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 36% faster in Rust
- Is 10 years and 4 months newer – Jan 14, 2025 vs Sep 02, 2014
- Is 10 years and 4 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 Ultra 9 285: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8320E
Sep 2nd, 2014
Average FPS
209 FPS
74%
Min 1% FPS
41 FPS
44%
Price, $
$178.02
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.85/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 9 285
Jan 14th, 2025
Average FPS
284 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
94 FPS
100%
Price, $
$563.41
31%
Value, $/FPS
$1.98/FPS
43%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8320E vs Core Ultra 9 285 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8320E vs Core Ultra 9 285 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
71%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
29%
Core Ultra 9 285
Jan 14th, 2025
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.5 GHz
78%
Turbo Frequency
5.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8320E Sep 2nd, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 9 285 Jan 14th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 2nd, 2014 | Released | Jan 14th, 2025 |
$147.00 | MSRP | $579.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1851 |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
