Gaming Performance (HQ Settings)
The FX-8320E was 26% slower than the Intel processors in Company of Heroes and while the overclocked allowed for 19% more performance, the 4.6GHz FX-8320E was still 13% slower than the i3-4360.
Despite offering 26% less performance than the Intel processors, the FX-8320E consumed 17% more power to reach a system draw of 309 watts. The overclocked configuration hit 381 watts which was 44% more than the Intel chips.
The FX-8320E was 8% slower than the i3-4360 in Metro Redux and still 5% slower once overclocked.
Although AMD's FX-8320E was 8% slower than the i3-4360, it still consumed 17% more power and 52% more once overclocked.
The Hitman Absolution results were close as the FX-8320E was just 4% slower than the Core i3-4360. Overclocking partially closed the gap.
This time we see that the FX-8320E consumed 16% more power than the i3-4360 and 54% more once overclocked.
In Tomb Raider, the FX-8320E trailed the i3-4360 by a mere 1% margin and while overclocking helped, it only yielded one more fps.
The FX-8320E came near enough to matching the performance of the i3-4360 in Tomb Raider, though it still required 15% more power to do so.
Update: After receiving a ton of feedback, we decided to run a few more HQ benchmarks...
The overclocked FX-8320 makes up some nice distance here but it is not enough to beat the Core i3-4360.
The results are pretty close in Battlefield 4, you certainly aren't going to notice the difference between the FX-8320E and Core i3-4360 or the Core i5-4430 for that matter. Nonetheless the plucky little Core i3 did beat the FX processor.
No self respecting AMD fan boy should even acknowledge DX11 performance in Thief, Mantle all the way. For whatever reason the FX series gets hosed in Thief regardless of the version, it has been that way since day one. Sadly Mantle support is only available in a few select games and won't help FX users who went with the green team.