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 Opteron 2378

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 2378

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 60.94W vs 117.5W Around 50% lower typical power consumption
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Much lower annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year vs 46.87 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year vs 109.5 $/year 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8120

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8120

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 2 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Higher clock speed 3.1 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 30% higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better performance per watt 7.23 pt/W vs 1.73 pt/W Around 4.2x better performance per watt
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.47 GHz vs 2.96 GHz More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 1,907 vs 1,072 Around 80% better geekbench 3 single core score
Slightly more l3 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Better PassMark score 6,587 vs 3,179 More than 2x better PassMark score
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Newer Oct, 2011 vs Nov, 2008 Release date over 2 years later
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.73 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 95% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Higher Maximum operating temperature 61 °C vs 55 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature

Benchmarks Real world tests of Opteron 2378 vs FX 8120

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 2378
6,880
FX 8120
8,832

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 2378
1,072
FX 8120
1,907

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 2378
82,700 MB/s
FX 8120
2,200,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Opteron 2378
3,179
FX 8120
6,587

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8120
1,214

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Opteron 2378  vs
FX 8120 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 3.1 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
F
AM3+
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 75W 125W
Annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year 46.87 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 1.73 pt/W 7.23 pt/W
Typical power consumption 60.94W 117.5W

bus

Clock speed 2,000 MHz 2,600 MHz

details

Opteron 2378  vs
FX 8120 
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 2 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 12 20
Voltage range 1.3 - UnknownV 1.11 - 1.38V
Operating temperature 0 - 55°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.96 GHz 4.47 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz 4.73 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.96 GHz 4.47 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
AMD Opteron 2378
Report a correction
AMD FX 8120
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus