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
Front view of AMD FX 6300

AMD FX 6300

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4400E

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4400E

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Significantly newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 30.06W vs 77.19W 2.6x lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 8.91 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 32.41 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 2.6x lower annual commercial energy cost
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1.33 MB/core Around 15% more l3 cache per core
Newer Jul, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 8 months later
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 0.5 MB 12x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per dollar 9.35 pt/$ vs 0.36 pt/$ Around 25.8x better performance per dollar
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Significantly higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 2.7 GHz Around 30% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz vs 3.3 GHz Around 25% higher turbo clock speed
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 3 MB Around 2.8x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.75 GHz vs 2.7 GHz More than 75% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per watt 9.84 pt/W vs 2.61 pt/W More than 3.8x better performance per watt
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,446 vs 476 More than 3x better PassMark (Single core) score
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
Significantly better PassMark score 6,444 vs 1,271 More than 5x better PassMark score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.82 GHz vs 2.7 GHz Around 80% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
More threads 6 vs 4 2 more threads

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4400E vs FX 6300

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 6300
6,444

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4400E  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 2.7 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.3 GHz 4.1 GHz
Cores Dual core Hexa core
Socket type
BGA 1364
AM3+
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
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 37W 95W
Annual home energy cost 8.91 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 32.41 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 2.61 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 30.06W 77.19W

details

Core i5 4400E  vs
FX 6300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 6
L2 cache 0.5 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 27 20

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.7 GHz 4.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.7 GHz 4.82 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.7 GHz 4.75 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label HD 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 400 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,000 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i5 4400E
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus