CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4365 vs 50 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

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

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?

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

7.6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD Opteron 4365 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Opteron 4365  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

AMD Opteron 4365

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD Opteron 4365

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Opteron 4365

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 4365

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
Significantly higher clock speed 2 GHz vs 1 GHz 2x higher clock speed
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 1 MB 8x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Significantly newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 40 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More cores 8 vs 2 6 more cores; run more applications at once
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 911 vs 265 Around 3.5x better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better PassMark score 5,025 vs 462 Around 11x better PassMark score
More threads 8 vs 2 6 more threads
More l3 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Newer Nov, 2012 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 1 years later
Slightly better performance per watt 3.84 pt/W vs 3.24 pt/W Around 20% better performance per watt
Front view of AMD C 50

Reasons to consider the
AMD C 50

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Significantly lower typical power consumption 7.31W vs 32.5W 4.4x lower typical power consumption
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 90 °C vs 70 °C Around 30% higher Maximum operating temperature
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 2.17 $/year vs 9.64 $/year 4.4x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 7.88 $/year vs 35.04 $/year 4.4x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Opteron 4365 vs C 50

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Opteron 4365  vs
C 50 
Clock speed 2 GHz 1 GHz
Cores Octa core Dual core
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
AMD64
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES

details

Opteron 4365  vs
C 50 
Threads 8 2
L2 cache 8 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 1 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 40 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 70°C Unknown - 90°C

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ HD 6250
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 276 MHz

power consumption

TDP 40W 9W
Annual home energy cost 9.64 $/year 2.17 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 35.04 $/year 7.88 $/year
Performance per watt 3.84 pt/W 3.24 pt/W
Typical power consumption 32.5W 7.31W
AMD Opteron 4365
Report a correction
AMD C 50
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus