FX-9800P vs Ryzen 3 1300X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 1300X outperforms FX-9800P by a whopping 175% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-9800P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1333 | 2083 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.32 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Power efficiency | 6.40 | 10.09 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-9800P 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 34 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 320 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 3,100 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-9800P 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | FP4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-9800P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-9800P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-9800P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-9800P.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 8 |
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.
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.
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.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.56 | 1.66 |
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 31 May 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen 3 1300X has a 174.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
FX-9800P, on the other hand, has 333.3% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 3 1300X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9800P in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 3 1300X is a desktop processor while FX-9800P is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-9800P, 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.
