FX-8320 vs Ryzen 3 2300U

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.

FX-8320 vs Ryzen 3 2300U FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

FX-8320 vs Ryzen 3 2300U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

FX-8320

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +30.1% higher average FPS across 50 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

2018

Why 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 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8320.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 3 2300U better than FX-8320?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, FX-8320 is ahead with a 30.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 3 2300U pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 3 2300U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Ryzen 3 2300U is still the much better call for a fresh build. Ryzen 3 2300U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $169 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. FX-8320 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (32.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3+.

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

Ryzen 3 2300U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

FX-8320 vs Ryzen 3 2300U Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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

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.