Intel Itanium 9050 vs AMD FX 6300 |
Released July, 2006
Intel Itanium 9050
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9050
 | Much more l2 cache 24 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 12 MB/core |
| | Much more l3 cache per core 12 MB/core | | Much more l3 cache 24 MB |
VS
Released October, 2012
AMD FX 6300
- 3.5 GHz
- Hexa core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 6300
| | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | | Much higher clock speed 3.5 GHz |
| | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes | | Has a NX bit Yes |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 24 MB | vs | 6 MB | 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much more l2 cache per core | 12 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 12x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 12 MB/core | vs | 1.33 MB/core | 9x more l3 cache per core | |||
| Much more l3 cache | 24 MB | vs | 8 MB | 3x 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 | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 76 °C | vs | 62.5 °C | More than 20% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much higher clock speed | 3.5 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | Around 2.2x higher clock speed | |||
| 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 | 6 | vs | 2 | Three times as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Newer | Oct, 2012 | vs | Jul, 2006 | Release date over 6 years later | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 77.19W | vs | 84.5W | Around 10% lower typical power consumption | |||
| More threads | 6 | vs | 4 | 2 more threads | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | vs | 25.05 $/year | Around 10% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | vs | 91.1 $/year | Around 10% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Itanium 9050 vs FX 6300
clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9050 | vs | FX 6300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Hexa 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 9050 | vs | FX 6300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 6 | |
| L2 cache | 24 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 12 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 12 MB/core | 1.33 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 | 20 | |
| Voltage range | 1.09 - 1.25V | 0.8 - 1.43V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 76°C | Unknown - 62.5°C | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 104W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 25.05 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 91.1 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 84.5W | 77.19W | |
bus | |||
| Clock speed | 533 MHz | 2,600 MHz | |
 Intel Itanium 9050  Report a correction |  AMD FX 6300 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $100 | $184 | |
| 6300 vs 3570K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $100 | $125 | |
| 6300 vs 6100 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $100 | $128 | |
| 6300 vs 8350 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $100 | $170 | |
| 6300 vs 8300 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $100 | $200 | |
| 6300 vs 965 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $100 | $190 | |
| 6300 vs 4460 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $100 | $140 | |
| 6300 vs 8320 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
