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 K6-2+ 500

Reasons to consider the
AMD K6-2+ 500

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the K6-2+ 500 vs the FX 8320.

Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 0.13 MB More than 61.5x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 180 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 0.5 GHz 7x higher clock speed
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
More cores 8 vs 1 7 more cores; run more applications at once
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jun, 1999 Release date over 13 years later
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.13 MB/core Around 7.8x more l2 cache per core
More threads 8 vs 1 7 more threads

Features Key features of the K6-2+ 500  vs FX 8320 

clock speed

K6-2+ 500
0.5 GHz
FX 8320
3.5 GHz

L2 cache

K6-2+ 500
0.13 MB
FX 8320
8 MB

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

K6-2+ 500  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 0.5 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Single core Octa core
Socket type
Slot A
Super 7
AM3+

features

Has a NX bit No 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
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM

details

K6-2+ 500  vs
FX 8320 
Threads 1 8
L2 cache 0.13 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.13 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 180 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

power consumption

Typical power consumption N/A 101.56W

bus

Clock speed 100 MHz 2,600 MHz
AMD K6-2+ 500
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus