FX-8300 vs Xeon E5-2673 V3

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2673 V3
2014
12 cores / 24 threads, 105 Watt
9.31
+167%

Xeon E5-2673 V3 outperforms FX-8300 by a whopping 167% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking8491557
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency8.093.35
Architecture codenameHaswell-EP (2014−2015)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date8 September 2014 (10 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads248
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz4.2 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache256K (per core)8192 KB
L3 cache30 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography22 nm32 nm
Die size356 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data71 °C
Number of transistors2,600 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-
Unlocked multiplier-+
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300 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 configuration21
Socket2011-3AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
TSX+-

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4 2133 MHz Quad-channelDDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300.

PCIe version3.0n/a
PCI Express lanes40no 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.

Xeon E5-2673 V3 9.31
+167%
FX-8300 3.49

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.

Xeon E5-2673 V3 14243
+167%
FX-8300 5335

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.

Xeon E5-2673 V3 743
+63.3%
FX-8300 455

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.

Xeon E5-2673 V3 1579
FX-8300 1716
+8.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.31 3.49
Recency 8 September 2014 23 October 2012
Physical cores 12 8
Threads 24 8
Chip lithography 22 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 95 Watt

Xeon E5-2673 V3 has a 166.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

FX-8300, on the other hand, has 10.5% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5-2673 V3 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2673 V3 is a server/workstation processor while FX-8300 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2673 V3 and FX-8300, 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.


Intel Xeon E5-2673 V3
Xeon E5-2673 V3
AMD FX-8300
FX-8300

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.


4.4 298 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2673 V3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2340 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2673 V3 or FX-8300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.