Core i7-9700K vs FX-8320

CPU

GPU

Core i7-9700K

8 Cores8 Thrd95 WWMax: 4.9 GHz2018

Popular choices:

•••••••••

FX-8320

8 Cores8 Thrd125 WWMax: 4 GHz2012

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i7-9700K

8 / 8

14,397

+163.1%

5,472

0.0%

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 i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +110.4% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 15.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while FX-8320 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌
127.8% HIGHER MSRP
$385 MSRPvs$169 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.

FX-8320

2012

Why buy it

✅Costs $216 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-9700K.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,472 vs 14,397).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.4 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

FX-8320

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +110.4% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 15.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while FX-8320 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Costs $216 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i7-9700K.

Trade-offs

❌
127.8% HIGHER MSRP
$385 MSRPvs$169 MSRP
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,472 vs 14,397).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.4 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-9700K better than FX-8320?

Yes. Core i7-9700K is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 110.4% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data, 163.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-9700K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 110.4% more average FPS across 5 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-9700K is the better fit. You are getting 163.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core i7-9700K is the smarter buy today. Core i7-9700K is 127.8% more expensive on MSRP at $385 MSRP versus $169 MSRP, and it gives you a 110.4% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 15.5% better value on MSRP (37.4 vs 32.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i7-9700K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 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 i7-9700K Benchmark Check

FX-8320 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	FX-8320
1080p
low	308 FPS	137 FPS
medium	278 FPS	137 FPS
high	231 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	137 FPS
medium	221 FPS	120 FPS
high	178 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	65 FPS
medium	140 FPS	58 FPS
high	108 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open FX-8320

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	FX-8320
1080p
low	360 FPS	137 FPS
medium	321 FPS	137 FPS
high	291 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	137 FPS
medium	282 FPS	137 FPS
high	258 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	137 FPS
medium	221 FPS	137 FPS
high	208 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	120 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open FX-8320

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	FX-8320
1080p
low	360 FPS	137 FPS
medium	360 FPS	137 FPS
high	360 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	137 FPS
medium	360 FPS	137 FPS
high	360 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	137 FPS
medium	360 FPS	137 FPS
high	360 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	137 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open FX-8320

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	FX-8320
1080p
low	360 FPS	137 FPS
medium	360 FPS	137 FPS
high	360 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	137 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	137 FPS
medium	360 FPS	137 FPS
high	360 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	137 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	137 FPS
medium	360 FPS	137 FPS
high	360 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	137 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open FX-8320

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and FX-8320

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

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

Both the Core i7-9700K and FX-8320 share an identical 8-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4 GHz on the FX-8320 — a 20.2% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-8320 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the FX-8320's 5,472 — a 89.8% lead for the Core i7-9700K.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	FX-8320
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 8
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+23%	4 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+3%	3.5 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8192 kB+3100%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Vishera (2012−2015)
PassMark	14,397+163%	5,472
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	4,500
Geekbench 6 Single	—	458
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,791

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K 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 DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus DDR3-1866 on the FX-8320 — the Core i7-9700K supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-9700K supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and 970,990X,990FX (FX-8320).

Feature	Core i7-9700K	FX-8320
Socket	LGA1151	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666+33%	DDR3-1866
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+300%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Both processors feature an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs AMD-V (FX-8320). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the FX-8320 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, FX-8320 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: FX-8320 rivals Core i5-3570.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	FX-8320
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	Yes
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V
Target Use	Desktop	Productivity

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the FX-8320 debuted at $169. On MSRP ($385 vs $169), the FX-8320 is $216 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 32.4 pts/$ for the FX-8320 — making the Core i7-9700K the 14.4% better value option.