Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 4300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 4300

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the FX 4300 vs the Athlon X4 860K.

Front view of AMD Athlon X4 860K

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon X4 860K

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Athlon X4 860K vs the FX 4300.

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 4300 vs Athlon X4 860K

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 4300
5,582

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 4300
1,981

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 4300
2,210,000 MB/s
Athlon X4 860K
2,290,000 MB/s

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 4300
12,857

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 4300
4,114

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 4300
4,651

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 4300
1,406

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 4300  vs
Athlon X4 860K 
Clock speed 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Is unlocked Yes Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM

power consumption

TDP 95W 95W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 9.24 pt/W 9.83 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 77.19W

details

FX 4300  vs
Athlon X4 860K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
L2 cache 4 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 28 nm

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.48 GHz 4.37 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.98 GHz 4.45 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.48 GHz 4.37 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
AMD FX 4300
Report a correction
AMD Athlon X4 860K
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 13 comments.
I built my current internet cruzing pc about 1.5 years ago when I moved and my laptop did not make it and my old desk top could not make the leap from XP to newer OS. If I recall properly I bought my FX4350 for $54 here on New Egg and a few months latter the price had jumped a lot. A powerful Gigabyte board and 16GB of ram and she hums along nicely. The Gigabyte board is Ultra Durable and was on clearance I think for $39 or $49 and 16GB of Corsair Vegance DDR3 RAM. I get 85%-95% of the performance of a top of the line Intel I7 for a fraction of the cost. I do not game on this PC with anything that demanding my graphics card is designed for 3D rendering and CAD/CAM that said the Video card would hold me back not the CPU. When I over clock I have gotten it into the 5Ghz area easily. Heat is the problem though you have to run the fan like a leaf blower to keep it cool and I get little extra out of the PC doing that so I just lit it run OEM at 4.2Ghz. 4 cores running at 4.2Ghz is no joke. Depending on the board you use your memory choice will be the bottle neck not this CPU. It comes down to price versus performance. The difference in price between a FX4350 and an I7 is enough that the money you save would allow you to double your ram and use the best ram on earth. IN fact you could by another $300-$400 video card for the build with the money saved between the two CPU's alone. The CPU is not the Queen Bee any more when it comes to frame rates. Chipset, Video Card and RAM speed. Obviously it never hurts to have more CPU but it often is not the huge boost in performance one would think it is and the cost is seldom worth it compared to video card upgrade, memory upgrade, RAID or Flash drive etc..... You pretty much have to have ram, drive speed and video cards closed to marked out for the test or the game in question before you start to see meaningful increases in performance due o CPU upgrades. Real life builds by those of us on budgets seldom reflect the youtube and gaming magazine version of reality. I have seen plenty of builds with "perfect parts" result is under whelming performance based on $$$ spent. For the record I do not own a 4K monitor and never will. My eye's can not see in 4K. Real life is not resolved at the level of 4K so 4K has higher resolution than the real world! Likewise no motion picture or cartoons are 120 frames per minute so why would I use some artificaly high rate as my standard. They have to keep selling parts to stay in business which has people chasing number's not real life results. Kind of funny really. How much more real and high def than real life do we need to get. I would rather be gaming than worring about my gaming graphics not being up tot he latest greatest trend. You do not see Xbox and PS owners losing sleep over the white paper spec. of their system!
According to what source? I love the 860k but don't believe that in single threaded programs it performs better than an fx 9590.
go check... beacuse 860K have the biggest score in single core perfomance... even FX 9xxx dont have so strong cores like 860K... new arhitecture boy...
ahaaaaaaaaaaa
Sadly this site is VERY inaccurate sometimes
860K OC: http://valid.x86.fr/w8dqk7 / 5.2GHZ!!!! Air Cooling. Temp.:only 39 degrees... FX will be burn on air cooling :))) see this... I was without water cooling and without added voltage overclocked 860K up to 5.2GHZ!!!! I am on 3.place.. guy on 1.place overclock up to 6.0GHZ!!! (max. go up to 6.3GHZ) proof:http://valid.x86.fr/84vbki all 860K overclock: http://valid.x86.fr/search/search.php?psn=414d44204174686c6f6e28746d29205834203836304b205175616420436f72652050726f636573736f722020202020&sort=freq
OMG!!! What is this??? FX 9370 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-9370-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 9590 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-9590-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 9370 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-9370-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 8320 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8320-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 8300 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 8150 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8150-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 6350 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6350-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 6300 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 4300 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-4300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 4170 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-4170-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 4100 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-4100-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K
what???? 4300 is smarter choice? for you maybe... why? beacuse is FX CPU??? look perfomance of 4300. this is weak CPU! whit very weak cores. like FX 6300 or FX 8300. 6 and 8 cores, but 4 cores of 860K is stronger than all 6/8 this (old) cores! Look Single Core Perfomance, this is most most important, for gaming especially. FX 6/8 cores CPUs is better only for multitasking,for gaming is better 860K. are you see fck benchmark!!!! for what is this???? please,look this: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+X4+860K+Quad+Core this is rank of 860K... what you say now??? is better choice? yes,if you think play Minecraft... learn little about CPU arhitecture,about CPU cores etc. For overclock, 4300 is better? :) 860K you can overclock up to 6.3Ghz!!! (check on CPU-Z page) OMG.... it's stupid to waste time on someone who barely knows how to turn the computer. Below is proof that you can not deny!!!! FX 9370 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-9370-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 9590 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-9590-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 9370 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-9370-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 8320 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8320-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 8300 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 8150 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8150-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 6350 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6350-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 6300 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 4300 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-4300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 4170 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-4170-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K FX 4100 vs 860K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-4100-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K
yes but this costs 80$, while when the phenoms came out they costed 150-175$. Also even if both were 28 nm, phenom II and intel haswell's cores are TWICE as big as this CPUs cores, in other words, bigger cores = more transistors per core = more components(ALUs, AGUs, Registers, Decoders, wider fetches) so it's normal.
not for gaming.
You're blind or what? it just named athlon,it's a10 without gpu.
I would pick the fx line personally, but as one already said about the Phenom IIs .... I would get whichever is a cheaper honestly as the money saved would be better spent on a decent mid to lower high end graphics card (r9 270x - 280x, gtx 760/770ish). I think your pennies would be better spent on Intel though, and this is coming from a hard core AMD user (watercooled FX-6300 @ 4.6GHz, HD 7870 GHz edition OCed ...). My 6300 probably competes with low end sandy i5s on good days but more realistically competes with i3s. For around the same price you can get a Pentium g3258 and OC the hell out of it, decent OC ready mobos will be around the same price for either cpu ...
I swear AMD is so useless, you got Phenom outperforming their revamped Bulldozer architecture in 2014 clock for clock. I would love to see them shine, but it's survival of the fittest.
comments powered by Disqus