Phenom X4 9650 vs FX-8300

Aggregate performance score

FX-8300
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
3.36
+211%
Phenom X4 9650
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.08

FX-8300 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 by a whopping 211% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8300 and Phenom X4 9650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15642404
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency3.351.08
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Agena (2007−2008)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)March 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8300 and Phenom X4 9650 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 GHzno data
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz2.3 GHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB512 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size315 mm2285 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million450 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 Phenom X4 9650 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 configuration11
SocketAM3+AM2+
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8300 and Phenom X4 9650. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8300 and Phenom X4 9650 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8300 and Phenom X4 9650. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8300 and Phenom X4 9650.

PCIe versionn/ano data

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 3.36
+211%
Phenom X4 9650 1.08

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 5337
+210%
Phenom X4 9650 1721

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
+92%
Phenom X4 9650 238

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 1720
+127%
Phenom X4 9650 758

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.36 1.08
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm

FX-8300 has a 211.1% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

The FX-8300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Phenom X4 9650 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8300 and Phenom X4 9650, 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 Phenom X4 9650
Phenom X4 9650

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 2360 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 225 votes

Rate Phenom X4 9650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8300 or Phenom X4 9650, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.