Xeon X3460 vs FX-8300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8300
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
3.49
+79.9%

FX-8300 outperforms Xeon X3460 by an impressive 80% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8300 and Xeon X3460 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15571970
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency3.351.86
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)no data
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)1 July 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-8300 and Xeon X3460 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)
Threads88
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz3.46 GHz
L2 cache8192 KBno data
L3 cacheno data8 MB Intel® Smart Cache
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature71 °C73 °C
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
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 Xeon X3460 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+FCLGA1156,LGA1156
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8300 and Xeon X3460. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data1.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data+
PAEno data36 Bit

Security technologies

FX-8300 and Xeon X3460 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8300 and Xeon X3460 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8300 and Xeon X3460. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333
Maximum memory sizeno data32 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

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 Xeon X3460.

PCIe versionn/a2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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 3.49
+79.9%
Xeon X3460 1.94

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 5335
+79.5%
Xeon X3460 2972

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 455
Xeon X3460 473
+4%

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 1716
+16.3%
Xeon X3460 1476

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.49 1.94
Recency 23 October 2012 1 July 2009
Physical cores 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm

FX-8300 has a 79.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

The FX-8300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X3460 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8300 is a desktop processor while Xeon X3460 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8300 and Xeon X3460, 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
Intel Xeon X3460
Xeon X3460

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 2340 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 102 votes

Rate Xeon X3460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8300 or Xeon X3460, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.