Core i5-6400 vs FX-8320

CPU

GPU

Core i5-6400

4 Cores4 Thrd65 WWMax: 3.3 GHz2015

Popular choices:

•••••••••

FX-8320

8 Cores8 Thrd125 WWMax: 4 GHz2012

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i5-6400

4 / 4

5,417

0.0%

5,472

+1.0%

Athlon X4 830

Athlon X4 880K

Ryzen Embedded R1606G

FX-8140

Ryzen 7 5700

Ryzen AI Max PRO 390

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i5-6400

2015

Why buy it

✅+78.7% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 530, while FX-8320 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 29.8 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($182 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).

FX-8320

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $13 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).
✅Delivers 8.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 29.8 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,791 vs 3,200).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-6400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i5-6400

2015

FX-8320

2012

Why buy it

✅+78.7% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 530, while FX-8320 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $13 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).
✅Delivers 8.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 32.4 vs 29.8 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 29.8 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($182 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,791 vs 3,200).
❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-6400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-6400 better than FX-8320?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, FX-8320 is ahead with a 19.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-6400 pulls ahead with 78.7% better Geekbench multi-core.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-6400 is the better fit. You are getting 78.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i5-6400 is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Core i5-6400 is 7.7% more expensive on MSRP at $182 MSRP versus $169 MSRP, and it gives you 78.7% better Geekbench multi-core. FX-8320 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 8.8% better value on paper (32.4 vs 29.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3+.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-6400 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i5-6400 Benchmark Check

FX-8320 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-6400	FX-8320
1080p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	110 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	116 FPS	120 FPS
high	91 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	72 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	65 FPS	65 FPS
medium	58 FPS	58 FPS
high	45 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i5-6400 Open FX-8320

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-6400	FX-8320
1080p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	104 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	123 FPS	137 FPS
high	115 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	92 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	111 FPS	137 FPS
medium	100 FPS	137 FPS
high	79 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	120 FPS

Open Core i5-6400 Open FX-8320

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-6400	FX-8320
1080p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS

Open Core i5-6400 Open FX-8320

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-6400	FX-8320
1080p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	135 FPS	137 FPS
medium	135 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	137 FPS

Open Core i5-6400 Open FX-8320

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-6400 and FX-8320

Core i5-6400

The Core i5-6400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 July 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 5,417 points. Launch price was $187.

FX-8320

The FX-8320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,472 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-6400 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the FX-8320 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8320 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the Core i5-6400 versus 4 GHz on the FX-8320 — a 19.2% clock advantage for the FX-8320 (base: 2.7 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i5-6400 uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-8320 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-6400 scores 5,417 against the FX-8320's 5,472 — a 1% lead for the FX-8320. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 950 vs 458, a 69.9% lead for the Core i5-6400 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 3,200 vs 1,791 (56.5% advantage for the Core i5-6400).

Feature	Core i5-6400	FX-8320
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	8 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	3.3 GHz	4 GHz+21%
Base Clock	2.7 GHz	3.5 GHz+30%
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8192 kB+3100%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Vishera (2012−2015)
PassMark	5,417	5,472+1%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	4,500
Geekbench 6 Single	950+107%	458
Geekbench 6 Multi	3,200+79%	1,791

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-6400 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8320 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the Core i5-6400 versus DDR3-1866 on the FX-8320 — the Core i5-6400 supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-6400 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H110,B150,H170,Z170 (Core i5-6400) and 970,990X,990FX (FX-8320).

Feature	Core i5-6400	FX-8320
Socket	LGA1151	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+33%	DDR3-1866
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB+100%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the FX-8320 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-6400) vs AMD-V (FX-8320). The Core i5-6400 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 530), while the FX-8320 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-6400 targets Mainstream Desktop, FX-8320 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: FX-8320 rivals Core i5-3570.

Feature	Core i5-6400	FX-8320
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics 530	—
Unlocked	No	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	AMD-V
Target Use	Mainstream Desktop	Productivity

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-6400 launched at $182 MSRP, while the FX-8320 debuted at $169. On MSRP ($182 vs $169), the FX-8320 is $13 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-6400 delivers 29.8 pts/$ vs 32.4 pts/$ for the FX-8320 — making the FX-8320 the 8.4% better value option.