Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1660 v4 outperforms the cheaper FX-8320 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8320 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Xeon E5-1660 v4 is 1336 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4
- Performs up to 20% better in Rust than FX-8320 - 185 vs 154 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 16 vs 8 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 73% cheaper than Xeon E5-1660 v4 - $95.0 vs $352.36
- Up to 67% better value when playing Rust than Xeon E5-1660 v4 - $0.62 vs $1.9 per FPS
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
Rust
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
185
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.9/FPS
32.631578947368425%
Price, $
$352.36
26%
FPS Winner
Buy for $352.36 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1600 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
154
83.24324324324324%
Value, $/FPS
$0.62/FPS
100%
Price, $
$95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1597 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 | vs | AMD FX-8320 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | FX |
Broadwell | Codename | Vishera |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 8 |
16 | Threads | 8 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
32.0x | Multiplier | 17.5x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |