Performance comparison: which is faster?
AMD FX-8320 (AMD, 2012) and AMD FX-6300 (AMD, 2012) are compared here. Compare not only scores, but also whether the motherboard can be reused and which GPU class is balanced with each CPU.
Overall performance: FX-8320 is about 30.8% faster
Both use the same AM3+ socket, so they can be installed on the same motherboard. For games, performance balance with the GPU (guideline CPU:GPU = 0.9:1) matters more than CPU speed alone.
Relative performance score (higher is faster). Actual speed varies by workload, cooling, and memory configuration.
| Item | FX-8320 | FX-6300 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance Score | 8,500 | 6,500 |
| Generation | FX | FX |
| Socket | AM3+ | AM3+ |
| Release Year | 2012 | 2012 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Compatible GPU Example | Radeon RX 5500 XT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
| If You Want To... | Recommended |
|---|---|
| Prioritize maximum speed for heavy work or a high-end GPU | FX-8320 |
| Upgrade while reusing the current motherboard | Either works (same AM3+ socket) |
| Prioritize value and adequate performance | FX-6300 (the lower model is often sufficient) |
FX-8320 is about 30.8% higher by score (FX-8320: 8500 points / FX-6300: 6500 points). For gaming, the GPU tier usually matters more than a few percent of CPU difference. For CPU-heavy work such as video editing and streaming, choose the faster CPU.
Both are FX-generation CPUs.Both use the same AM3+ socket, so they can be installed on the same motherboard.
Using our CPU:GPU = 0.9:1 guideline, Radeon RX 5500 XT pairs well with FX-8320 and GeForce GTX 1650 pairs well with FX-6300. If either GPU is too strong or too weak, one part holds the other back.
