FX-8320 vs Xeon E3-1290

FX-8320 vs Xeon E3-1290 Performance Spectrum

FX-8320

8 / 8

5,472

+0.8%

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

Xeon E3-1290

4 / 8

5,429

0.0%

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.

FX-8320 vs Xeon E3-1290 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 Xeon E3-1290: 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: +10.0% 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 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8320 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌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 really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E3-1290 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-8320 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, FX-8320 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 10.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, FX-8320 is the stronger 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 better buy right now. FX-8320 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $169 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 10.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (32.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

FX-8320 makes more sense long term 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 is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

FX-8320 vs Xeon E3-1290 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.

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.