Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 5900X 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 Ryzen 9 5900X is 2935 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 63% cheaper than Ryzen 9 5900X - $102.02 vs $279.0
- Up to 36% better value when playing War Thunder than Ryzen 9 5900X - $0.78 vs $1.21 per FPS
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
- Performs up to 77% better in War Thunder than FX-8320 - 230 vs 130 FPS
- Consumes up to 16% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 105 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 24 vs 8 threads
War Thunder
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
130
56.52173913043478%
Value, $/FPS
$0.78/FPS
100%
Price, $
$102.02
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $102.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349100 minutes ago
Desktop • Nov 5th, 2020
FPS
230
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.21/FPS
64.46280991735537%
Price, $
$279
36%
FPS Winner
Buy for $279 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349100 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Nov 5th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Nov 5th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Vishera | Codename | Vermeer |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 12 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.8 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 105 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |