Key Differences
In short — FX-8320 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G540 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G540 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing FX-8320 is 415 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G540.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G540
- Up to 81% cheaper than FX-8320 - $19.25 vs $102.02
- Up to 82% better value when playing Ready or Not than FX-8320 - $0.08 vs $0.44 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Performs up to 1% better in Ready or Not than Celeron G540 - 234 vs 232 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G540 - 8 vs 2 threads
Ready or Not
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Sep 4th, 2011
FPS
232
99%
Value, $/FPS
$0.08/FPS
100%
Price, $
$19.25
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $19.25 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2180 minutes ago
Buy for $102.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2181 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Sep 4th, 2011
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G540 | vs | AMD FX-8320 |
---|---|---|
Sep 4th, 2011 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
Celeron | Collection | FX |
Sandy Bridge | Codename | Vishera |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
25.0x | Multiplier | 17.5x |
Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |