Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600K 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 i5-11600K is 3066 days newer than the cheaper FX-8320.
Advantages of AMD FX-8320
- Up to 49% cheaper than Core i5-11600K - $102.02 vs $198.9
- Up to 17% better value when playing Starfield than Core i5-11600K - $2.32 vs $2.8 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600K
- Performs up to 61% better in Starfield than FX-8320 - 71 vs 44 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8320 - 12 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8320 doesn't have integrated graphics
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
44
61.97183098591549%
Value, $/FPS
$2.32/FPS
100%
Price, $
$102.02
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $102.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349335 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
71
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.8/FPS
82.85714285714285%
Price, $
$198.9
51%
FPS Winner
Buy for $198.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349335 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8320 | vs | Intel Core i5-11600K |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Vishera | Codename | Rocket Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.9 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 125 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
17.5x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 750 |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |