Winner
AMD FX 4300
CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 4300 based on its .
See full details| | AMD Phenom II X4 955 vs FX 4300 |
| | More l3 cache 6 MB | | More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core |
by Legit Reviews (May, 2009)When it comes to benchmarks, the overclocked Phenom II X4 955 processor was nearly 20% quicker!
| | Newer manufacturing process 32 nms | | Significantly more l2 cache 4 MB |
| | Higher clock speed 3.8 GHz | | Much better performance per dollar 6.97 pt/$ |
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)At £70 this would have been tempting for the rig-builder on a tight budget - it happily outstrips the Ivy Bridge i3 in terms of multi-threaded goodness and can be pushed up to speeds that beat it in gaming terms too.
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Phenom II X4 955 6.7 FX 4300 6.7 | |
| Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Phenom II X4 955 7.5 FX 4300 7.9 | |
| Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Phenom II X4 955 9.5 FX 4300 9.3 | |
| Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Phenom II X4 955 5.6 FX 4300 8.2 | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
| Phenom II X4 955 7.1 FX 4300 7.4 | |
| | | AMD FX 4300CPUBoss Winner |
| |||||||
| More l3 cache | 6 MB | vs | 4 MB | 50% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More l3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 50% more l3 cache per core | |||
| |||||||
| Newer manufacturing process | 32 nms | vs | 45 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly more l2 cache | 4 MB | vs | 2 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher clock speed | 3.8 GHz | vs | 3.2 GHz | Around 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 6.97 pt/$ | vs | 1.56 pt/$ | Around 4.5x better performance per dollar | |||
| Significantly more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 77.19W | vs | 101.56W | Around 25% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 6,610 | vs | 3,900 | Around 70% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,420 | vs | 1,124 | More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Marginally newer | Oct, 2012 | vs | Nov, 2009 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.68 GHz | vs | 3.99 GHz | More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better performance per watt | 6.6 pt/W | vs | 4.31 pt/W | Around 55% better performance per watt | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 5 GHz | vs | 4.17 GHz | Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | vs | 109.5 $/year | Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | vs | 30.11 $/year | Around 25% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Phenom II X4 955 | by Legit Reviews (May, 2009)Benchmark Results: The 3DMark 2006 CPU test showed that the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition was faster than the Intel Q9550 once again!
summary | Phenom II X4 955 | vs | FX 4300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.8 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| AM3 | |||
| AM3+ | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | Yes | |
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| AES | |||
| 3DNow! | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| 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 | Phenom II X4 955 | vs | FX 4300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 4 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 6 MB | 4 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 259 | 7 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.99 GHz | 4.68 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.17 GHz | 5 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.99 GHz | 4.68 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 125W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 30.11 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 109.5 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 4.31 pt/W | 6.6 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 101.56W | 77.19W | |
| AMD Phenom II X4 955 | AMD FX 4300 |
| VS | |
| $110 | $90 | |
| 6300 vs 4300 | ||
| VS | |
| $125 | $90 | |
| 3220 vs 4300 | ||
| VS | |
| $114 | $90 | |
| 4130 vs 4300 | ||
| VS | |
| $250 | $90 | |
| 965 vs 4300 | ||
| VS | |
| $75 | $90 | |
| 760K vs 4300 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $345 | |
| 6300 vs 955 | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $345 | |
| 8350 vs 955 | ||
| VS | |
| $253 | $325 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $161 | $225 | |
| N3530 vs 3110M | ||
| VS | |
| $97 | $281 | |
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
| VS | |
| $340 | $325 | |
| 4790K vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| N2830 vs 3217U | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 4700MQ vs 5750M | ||
| VS | |
| 800 vs 5 Octa | ||