Key Differences
In short — Core i5-10400F 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 i5-10400F is 2746 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 9% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - $102.02 vs $112.53
- Up to 8% better value when playing Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order than Core i5-10400F - $0.48 vs $0.52 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 3% better in Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order than FX-8320 - 217 vs 211 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8320 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 12 vs 8 threads
Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
211
97.23502304147466%
Value, $/FPS
$0.48/FPS
100%
Price, $
$102.02
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $102.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 354037 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
217
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.52/FPS
92.3076923076923%
Price, $
$112.53
90%
FPS Winner
Buy for $112.53 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 354038 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | Intel Core i5-10400F |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Vishera | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |