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 Mendocino

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron Mendocino

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 19.26W vs 77.19W 4x lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 85 °C vs 70.5 °C More than 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 20.76 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 4x lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 5.71 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 4x lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8300

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 250 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 0.4 GHz Around 8.2x higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 0.13 MB More than 61.5x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More cores 8 vs 1 7 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 8 vs 1 7 more threads
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the 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
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.13 MB/core Around 7.8x more l2 cache per core
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Newer Dec, 2012 vs Aug, 1998 Release date over 14 years later

Features Key features of the Celeron Mendocino  vs FX 8300 

clock speed

FX 8300
3.3 GHz

L2 cache

FX 8300
8 MB

TDP

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron Mendocino  vs
FX 8300 
Clock speed 0.4 GHz 3.3 GHz
Cores Single core Octa core
Socket type
370
AM3+

features

Has a NX bit No Yes
Has virtualization support No Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No Yes

power consumption

TDP 23.7W 95W
Annual home energy cost 5.71 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 20.76 $/year 83.22 $/year
Typical power consumption 19.26W 77.19W

details

Celeron Mendocino  vs
FX 8300 
Architecture x86 x86-64
Threads 1 8
L2 cache 0.13 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.13 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 250 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 19,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 6 21
Operating temperature Unknown - 85°C Unknown - 70.5°C

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC No Yes
Intel Celeron Mendocino
Report a correction
AMD FX 8300
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus