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

Intel Itanium 9040

Front view of Intel Itanium 9040
Front view of AMD FX 8350

AMD FX 8350

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Itanium 9040

Reasons to consider the
Intel Itanium 9040

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 18 MB vs 8 MB 2.2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 9 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 9x more l2 cache per core
Much more l3 cache per core 9 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 9x more l3 cache per core
Much lower typical power consumption 84.5W vs 159.66W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Significantly more l3 cache 18 MB vs 8 MB 2.2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 vs 1 3 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration
Much lower annual home energy cost 25.05 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.2x lower annual home energy cost
Higher Maximum operating temperature 76 °C vs 61 °C Around 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 91.1 $/year vs 159.62 $/year Around 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 2.5x higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 90 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 a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
More cores 8 vs 2 6 more cores; run more applications at once
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jul, 2006 Release date over 6 years later
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads

Features Key features of the Itanium 9040  vs FX 8350 

clock speed

Itanium 9040
1.6 GHz
FX 8350
4 GHz

L2 cache

Itanium 9040
18 MB
FX 8350
8 MB

L3 cache

Itanium 9040
18 MB
FX 8350
8 MB

TDP

Itanium 9040
104W
FX 8350
125W

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Itanium 9040  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Dual core Octa core

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

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC No Yes

details

 Itanium 9040  vs
FX 8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 18 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 9 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 18 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 9 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 90 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,720,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 4 1
Clock multiplier 12 21
Voltage range 1.09 - 1.25V 0.81 - 1.45V
Operating temperature Unknown - 76°C Unknown - 61°C

power consumption
TDP 104W 125W
Annual home energy cost 25.05 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 91.1 $/year 159.62 $/year
Typical power consumption 84.5W 159.66W

bus
Clock speed 533 MHz 2,600 MHz
Intel Itanium 9040
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss