CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 290 vs 6300 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

FX 6300
n.d.
FX 8350
n.d.
Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

FX 6300
0.0
FX 8350
0.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 6300
n.d.
FX 8350
n.d.
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.4

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD FX 6300 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 6300  based on its performance and single-core performance.

See full details

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 290

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 290

Report a correction
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Higher Maximum operating temperature 67 °C vs 62.5 °C More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 2 MB 3x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 2.8 GHz More than 25% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.75 GHz vs 2.8 GHz Around 70% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
Significantly better PassMark score 6,444 vs 1,464 Around 4.5x better PassMark score
Significantly better performance per watt 9.84 pt/W vs 5.13 pt/W More than 90% better performance per watt
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,446 vs 876 More than 65% better PassMark (Single core) score
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2007 Release date over 5 years later
More threads 6 vs 2 Three times as many threads
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.82 GHz vs 2.8 GHz More than 70% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Opteron 290 vs FX 6300

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Opteron 290
1,464
FX 6300
6,444

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 6300
1,446

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Opteron 290  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 2.8 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Hexa core
Socket type
940
AM3+

features

Has a NX bit 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
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

details

Opteron 290  vs
FX 6300 
Threads 2 6
L2 cache 2 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 90 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 14 20
Voltage range 1 - UnknownV 0.8 - 1.43V
Operating temperature 0 - 67°C Unknown - 62.5°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.8 GHz 4.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.8 GHz 4.82 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.8 GHz 4.75 GHz

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 5.13 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 77.19W
AMD Opteron 290
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus