FX-8320 vs Xeon E3-1290

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

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E3-1290.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $169 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1290 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.

Xeon E3-1290

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,429 vs 5,472).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.

FX-8320

2012

Xeon E3-1290

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E3-1290.

Why buy it

✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $169 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1290 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,429 vs 5,472).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.

Quick Answers

So, is FX-8320 better than Xeon E3-1290?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E3-1290 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-8320 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, the two CPUs are effectively a wash in the available data.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, FX-8320 is the better fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

FX-8320 is the smarter buy today. FX-8320 is at an unclear MSRP at $169 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (32.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

FX-8320 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 4/8. 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.

FX-8320 Benchmark Check

Xeon E3-1290 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	FX-8320	Xeon E3-1290
1080p
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	118 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	120 FPS	118 FPS
high	95 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	77 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	65 FPS	64 FPS
medium	58 FPS	57 FPS
high	45 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	35 FPS

Open FX-8320 Open Xeon E3-1290

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	FX-8320	Xeon E3-1290
1080p
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	137 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	126 FPS
1440p
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	137 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	113 FPS
4K
low	137 FPS	134 FPS
medium	137 FPS	119 FPS
high	137 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	120 FPS	72 FPS

Open FX-8320 Open Xeon E3-1290

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	FX-8320	Xeon E3-1290
1080p
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	137 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	136 FPS
1440p
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	137 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	136 FPS
4K
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	137 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	136 FPS

Open FX-8320 Open Xeon E3-1290

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	FX-8320	Xeon E3-1290
1080p
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	137 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	136 FPS
1440p
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	137 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	136 FPS
4K
low	137 FPS	136 FPS
medium	137 FPS	136 FPS
high	137 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	136 FPS

Open FX-8320 Open Xeon E3-1290

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of FX-8320 and Xeon E3-1290

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.

Xeon E3-1290

The Xeon E3-1290 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 May 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,429 points. Launch price was $885.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-8320 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E3-1290 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8320 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the FX-8320 versus 4 GHz on the Xeon E3-1290 — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.5 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The FX-8320 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E3-1290 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-8320 scores 5,472 against the Xeon E3-1290's 5,429 — a 0.8% lead for the FX-8320.

Feature	FX-8320	Xeon E3-1290
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+100%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4 GHz	4 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz	3.6 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	—	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	8192 kB+3100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Vishera (2012−2015)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	5,472	5,429
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 Xeon E3-1290 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-8320	Xeon E3-1290
Socket	AM3+	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
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 (Xeon E3-1290). Primary use case: FX-8320 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: FX-8320 rivals Core i5-3570.