Key Differences
In short — Core i3-13100 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 Core i3-13100 is 3725 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 31% cheaper than Core i3-13100 - $102.02 vs $147.99
- Up to 11% better value when playing Battlefield V than Core i3-13100 - $0.49 vs $0.55 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i3-13100
- Performs up to 28% better in Battlefield V than FX-8320 - 267 vs 208 FPS
- Consumes up to 52% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 60 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield V
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
208
77.90262172284645%
Value, $/FPS
$0.49/FPS
100%
Price, $
$102.02
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $102.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349464 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
267
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.55/FPS
89.0909090909091%
Price, $
$147.99
68%
FPS Winner
Buy for $147.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349464 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | Intel Core i3-13100 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
FX | Collection | Core i3 |
Vishera | Codename | Raptor Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 8 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.5 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 60 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |