Xeon W-2104 vs FX-8300
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W-2104 outperforms FX-8300 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1560 | 1536 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.47 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon W |
| Power efficiency | 3.35 | 2.73 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Skylake (server) (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 29 August 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $255 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 32 |
| L1 cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 8.25 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 484 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 66 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | FCLGA2066 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 46 Bit |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 512 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 76.805 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104.
| PCIe version | n/a | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 48 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.49 | 3.59 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 29 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
FX-8300 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 26.3% lower power consumption.
Xeon W-2104, on the other hand, has a 2.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104.
Note that FX-8300 is a desktop processor while Xeon W-2104 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8300 and Xeon W-2104, 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.
