CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 420 vs 8350 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

5.5

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD FX 8350 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8350  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 Intel Celeron M 420

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 420

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 159.66W 5.6x lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 6.7x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 5.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 1 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 2.5x higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 8.15 pt/$ vs 1.57 pt/$ Around 5.2x better performance per dollar
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
More cores 8 vs 1 7 more cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.69 GHz vs 2.02 GHz More than 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better PassMark score 9,134 vs 452 Around 20.2x better PassMark score
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,525 vs 544 More than 2.8x better PassMark (Single core) score
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Apr, 2007 Release date over 5 years later
More threads 8 vs 1 7 more threads
Significantly better performance per watt 5.72 pt/W vs 1.57 pt/W Around 3.8x better performance per watt
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 3.38 GHz More than 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron M 420 vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron M 420
66,700 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron M 420  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Single core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 775
478
AM3+

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support No 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 No Yes

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

details

Celeron M 420  vs
FX 8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 1 8
L2 cache 1 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 105,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 8 21
Voltage range 1 - 1.34V 0.81 - 1.45V
Operating temperature Unknown - 60.4°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.02 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.38 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 1,365.1 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.02 GHz 4.69 GHz

power consumption

TDP 35W 125W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 1.57 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 159.66W

bus

Clock speed 800 MHz 2,600 MHz
Intel Celeron M 420
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus