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 Intel Atom E660

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom E660

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 2.92W vs 77.19W 26.4x lower typical power consumption
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower annual home energy cost 0.87 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 26.4x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 3.15 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 26.4x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 4300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 4300

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 10.97 pt/$ vs 0.2 pt/$ More than 53.5x better performance per dollar
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 0.5 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 3.8 GHz vs 1.3 GHz Around 3x higher clock speed
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.48 GHz vs 1.3 GHz Around 3.5x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per watt 9.24 pt/W vs 3.07 pt/W More than 3x better performance per watt
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More cores 4 vs 1 3 more cores; run more applications at once
Better PassMark score 4,651 vs 271 Around 17.2x better PassMark score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.98 GHz vs 1.3 GHz More than 3.8x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Sep, 2010 Release date over 2 years later
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads

Benchmarks Real world tests of Atom E660 vs FX 4300

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Atom E660
271
FX 4300
4,651

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Atom E660  vs
FX 4300 
Clock speed 1.3 GHz 3.8 GHz
Cores Single core Quad core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support 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
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 3.6W 95W
Annual home energy cost 0.87 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 3.15 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 3.07 pt/W 9.24 pt/W
Typical power consumption 2.92W 77.19W

details

Atom E660  vs
FX 4300 
Architecture x86 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 0.5 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 13 20
Voltage range 0.75 - 0.9V 0.81 - 1.43V

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.3 GHz 4.48 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.3 GHz 4.98 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.3 GHz 4.48 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Integrated N/A
GPU clock speed 400 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR2-800
DDR2
Channels Single Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 6,400 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Atom E660
Report a correction
AMD FX 4300
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus