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 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 8350 Black Edition vs the 4300 Black Edition.

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 4300 Black Edition vs the 8350 Black Edition.

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8350 vs 4300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
11,483
FX 4300
5,582

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
2,193
FX 4300
1,981

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s
FX 4300
2,210,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
10,956
FX 4300
5,404

GeekBench

FX 8350
12,796
FX 4300
5,404

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
6,880
FX 4300
6,610

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350
9,134
FX 4300
4,651

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350
1,525
FX 4300
1,406

Reviews Word on the street

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 8350  vs
4300 
Clock speed 4 GHz 3.8 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Octa core Quad core
Socket type
AM3+
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
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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

details

FX 8350  vs
4300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 4
L2 cache 8 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 4 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,200,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Die size 319 mm² 319 mm²
Clock multiplier 21 20
Voltage range 0.81 - 1.45V 0.81 - 1.43V
Operating temperature Unknown - 61°C Unknown - 70.5°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 709 7
Overclocked clock speed 4.69 GHz 4.48 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz 4.98 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.69 GHz 4.48 GHz

power consumption

TDP 125W 95W
Annual home energy cost 56.1 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 159.62 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 5.72 pt/W 9.24 pt/W
Typical power consumption 159.66W 77.19W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction
AMD FX 4300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 3 comments.
Well I'm not really trying to get in a fight but the fx4300 does in fact have 4 real cores. the virtual cores are the same thing as intel's hyperthread's. Back to my point. This site is meant for people to find cheaper parts for they're computer's that can do the same as an expensive part does. So I will clear up any confusion. The FX 8350 is indeed a nice chip but it comes with the burden of keeping it cool enough to pull off the ipc's necessary to complete tasks. It runs at 125 watts. The FX 4300 can easily meet those clock speeds at a lower tdp, therefor staying much cooler and allowing the chip to pull off the ipc's in the first place.
When gaming, AMD tends to do better with newer games, because newer games use multi-threading which is right up AMD's alley sense it uses virtual cores. Intel uses physical core's and no multi-threading sense there are no virtual cores involved. Intel is a great CPU for older games that do not use multi-threading and AMD would do a bad job because it's single to single core ratio is weaker than Intel's. The only thing Intel CPU's do better than AMD on, are overclocking and higher benchmark ratings. Also, Intel's single core vs an AMD's (virtual Core) blows AMD out of the water. You are right in saying that there is no real difference between Intel and AMD when gaming, because on the level that Intel beats AMD, would not be noticeable. However, when not gaming say; 3D rendering, Intel will be far more superior than AMD because programs like Cinema 4D use each core to render a set of pixels. I assume you could see how Intel's REAL physical cores could easily dominate AMD's virtual cores. Anyways, happy gaming oh and I would recommend getting a second 970 for SLI, it eats up GTA V like it's minesweeper lmao.
ive had both processors. the 4300 is the right one to get trust me. i have a core i7 6700k also, guess what? the i7 and fx 4300 are both coupled with 16gb ram and a gtx 970. they both have the same cpu cooler same power supply and same ssd. when i run any software including steam games i can tell no difference at all. infact when i run the ps2 emulator it runs better with the fx 4300 because i can run higher clock speeds and the fx has more instruction sets. the only thing you need to do to get great ipc's out of the fx chip to match the i7 when gaming is keep it below 45c. no probem! get the Cooler Master Hyper D92. as long as you install it right your fx 4300 won't reach 40c under %100 stress. mine don't. these are non bias facts for you to use. any troll can get on here and speculate. im playing modern games in full 1080p with all settings in ultra. the fx 4300 is all you need. your welcome! i spent the money and tested in real world playing fallout 4 mkx and gta 5. i can play all of them in 1080p in ultra with the fx 4300. there you go
comments powered by Disqus