FX-8150 vs Core i5-3550
Aggregate performance score
FX-8150 outperforms i5-3550 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-3550 and FX-8150 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1573 | 1521 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.00 | 1.24 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i5 (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Zambezi (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 23 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 12 October 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $205 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
FX-8150 has 24% better value for money than i5-3550.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-3550 and FX-8150 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 67 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 67 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-3550 and FX-8150 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 77 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-3550 and FX-8150. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i5-3550 and FX-8150 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-3550 and FX-8150 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-3550 and FX-8150. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-3550 and FX-8150.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
FX-8150 outperforms Core i5-3550 by 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 65%
FX-8150 outperforms Core i5-3550 by 9% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 40%
Core i5-3550 outperforms FX-8150 by 45% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 40%
Core i5-3550 outperforms FX-8150 by 9% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
3DMark Fire Strike Physics
Benchmark coverage: 4%
FX-8150 outperforms Core i5-3550 by 4% in 3DMark Fire Strike Physics.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.11 | 3.39 |
| Recency | 23 April 2012 | 12 October 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 77 Watt | 125 Watt |
i5-3550 has an age advantage of 6 months, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 62.3% lower power consumption.
FX-8150, on the other hand, has a 9% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i5-3550 and FX-8150.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-3550 and FX-8150, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
