FX-8320
Popular choices:
Ryzen 3 2300U
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
FX-8320
2012Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +20.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 3 2300U.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (5,472 vs 5,484).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $169 MSRP, while Ryzen 3 2300U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌733.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 15W.
Ryzen 3 2300U
2018Why buy it
- ✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 125W, a 110W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.
FX-8320
2012Ryzen 3 2300U
2018Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +20.6% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen 3 2300U.
Why buy it
- ✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 125W, a 110W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (5,472 vs 5,484).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $169 MSRP, while Ryzen 3 2300U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌733.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 15W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 3 2300U better than FX-8320?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.
Path of Exile 2
| Preset | FX-8320 | Ryzen 3 2300U |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 136 FPS |
| high | 118 FPS | 107 FPS |
| ultra | 98 FPS | 85 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 134 FPS |
| medium | 120 FPS | 114 FPS |
| high | 95 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 70 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 65 FPS | 62 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 56 FPS |
| high | 45 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 36 FPS | 34 FPS |
Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | FX-8320 | Ryzen 3 2300U |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 85 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 80 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 63 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 82 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 71 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 68 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 56 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 62 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 55 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 44 FPS |
| ultra | 120 FPS | 32 FPS |
League of Legends
| Preset | FX-8320 | Ryzen 3 2300U |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 132 FPS |
Valorant
| Preset | FX-8320 | Ryzen 3 2300U |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 137 FPS | 137 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FX-8320 and Ryzen 3 2300U
FX-8320
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.
Ryzen 3 2300U
Ryzen 3 2300U
The Ryzen 3 2300U is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 8 January 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Raven Ridge (2017−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 5,484 points. Launch price was $149.
Processing Power
The FX-8320 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Ryzen 3 2300U offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FX-8320 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the FX-8320 versus 3.4 GHz on the Ryzen 3 2300U — a 16.2% clock advantage for the FX-8320 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2 GHz). The FX-8320 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Ryzen 3 2300U uses Raven Ridge (2017−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the FX-8320 scores 5,472 against the Ryzen 3 2300U's 5,484 — a 0.2% lead for the Ryzen 3 2300U.
| Feature | FX-8320 | Ryzen 3 2300U |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8+100% | 4 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 4 GHz+18% | 3.4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.5 GHz+75% | 2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 4 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 8192 kB+1500% | 512 kB (per core) |
| Process | 32 nm | 14 nm-56% |
| Architecture | Vishera (2012−2015) | Raven Ridge (2017−2019) |
| PassMark | 5,472 | 5,484 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 4,500 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 458 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 1,791 | — |
Memory & Platform
The FX-8320 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Ryzen 3 2300U uses FP5 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | FX-8320 | Ryzen 3 2300U |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3+ | FP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1866 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: AMD-V (FX-8320) / not specified (Ryzen 3 2300U). Primary use case: FX-8320 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: FX-8320 rivals Core i5-3570.
| Feature | FX-8320 | Ryzen 3 2300U |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | — |
| Unlocked | Yes | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | — |
| Target Use | Productivity | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on FX-8320 and Ryzen 3 2300U
