A8-6410 vs FX-8300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8300
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
3.43
+201%
A8-6410
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.14

FX-8300 outperforms A8-6410 by a whopping 201% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8300 and A8-6410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15622394
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD A-Series
Power efficiency3.357.06
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Beema (2014)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)1 June 2014 (10 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8300 and A8-6410 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads84
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz2.4 GHz
L2 cache8192 KB2048 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature71 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million930 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8300 and A8-6410 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 configuration1no data
SocketAM3+FT3b
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8300 and A8-6410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT
AES-NI++
FMA+FMA4
AVX++
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8300 and A8-6410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8300 and A8-6410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3L-1866
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-8300 and A8-6410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-8300 and A8-6410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8300 and A8-6410.

PCIe versionn/a2.0

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-8300 3.43
+201%
A8-6410 1.14

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.

FX-8300 5340
+201%
A8-6410 1772

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.

FX-8300 457
+105%
A8-6410 223

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.

FX-8300 1718
+193%
A8-6410 587

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.43 1.14
Recency 23 October 2012 1 June 2014
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 15 Watt

FX-8300 has a 200.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

A8-6410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.

The FX-8300 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-6410 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8300 is a desktop processor while A8-6410 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8300 and A8-6410, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD FX-8300
FX-8300
AMD A8-6410
A8-6410

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 2354 votes

Rate FX-8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 322 votes

Rate A8-6410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8300 or A8-6410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.