Core i5-12400F
Popular choices:
FX-8320
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.
Core i5-12400F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +174.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Delivers 246.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of AM3+ and older memory support.
- ✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌3% HIGHER MSRP$174 MSRPvs$169 MSRP
FX-8320
2012Why buy it
- ✅Costs $5 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (4,500 vs 12,380).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.4 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
- ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on AM3+, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
Core i5-12400F
2022FX-8320
2012Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +174.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Delivers 246.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 32.4 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 125W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of AM3+ and older memory support.
- ✅25% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $5 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌3% HIGHER MSRP$174 MSRPvs$169 MSRP
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (4,500 vs 12,380).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 32.4 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
- ❌92.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on AM3+, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-12400F better than FX-8320?
Which one is better for gaming?
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 | Core i5-12400F | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 183 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 168 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 139 FPS | 118 FPS |
| ultra | 119 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 132 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 106 FPS | 95 FPS |
| ultra | 89 FPS | 77 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 81 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 64 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 49 FPS | 36 FPS |
Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 471 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 397 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 341 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 407 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 351 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 309 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 265 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 282 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 248 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 229 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 196 FPS | 120 FPS |
League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 434 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 389 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 337 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 274 FPS | 137 FPS |
Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 473 FPS | 137 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 450 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 391 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 330 FPS | 137 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and FX-8320
Core i5-12400F
Core i5-12400F
The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.
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.
Processing Power
The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the FX-8320 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8320 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 4 GHz on the FX-8320 — a 9.5% clock advantage for the Core i5-12400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the FX-8320 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the FX-8320's 5,472 — a 112.5% lead for the Core i5-12400F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 12,380 vs 4,500 (93.4% advantage for the Core i5-12400F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,700 vs 458, a 115.1% lead for the Core i5-12400F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 657 vs 1,791 (92.6% advantage for the FX-8320).
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 8 / 8+33% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+10% | 4 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 3.5 GHz+40% |
| L3 Cache | 18 MB (total) | — |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 8192 kB+540% |
| Process | Intel 7 nm-78% | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Alder Lake-S (2022) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| PassMark | 19,532+257% | 5,472 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 12,380+175% | 4,500 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,700+271% | 458 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 657 | 1,791+173% |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-12400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8320 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-12400F versus DDR3-1866 on the FX-8320 — the Core i5-12400F supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i5-12400F 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. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-12400F) vs 16 (FX-8320) — the Core i5-12400F offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-12400F) and 970,990X,990FX (FX-8320).
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | AM3+ |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200+67% | DDR3-1866 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB+300% | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | No | No |
| PCIe Lanes | 20+25% | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) vs AMD-V (FX-8320). Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value, FX-8320 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600; FX-8320 rivals Core i5-3570.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | — | Yes |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, EPT | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Gaming Performance/Value | Productivity |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-12400F launched at $174 MSRP, while the FX-8320 debuted at $169. On MSRP ($174 vs $169), the FX-8320 is $5 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-12400F delivers 112.3 pts/$ vs 32.4 pts/$ for the FX-8320 — making the Core i5-12400F the 110.5% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | FX-8320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $174 | $169-3% |
| Performance per Dollar | 112.3+247% | 32.4 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2012 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i5-12400F and FX-8320
