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 Itanium 9050

Reasons to consider the
Intel Itanium 9050

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 24 MB vs 8 MB 3x 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 MB/core 12x 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
Lower typical power consumption 84.5W vs 101.56W More than 15% lower typical power consumption
Higher Maximum operating temperature 76 °C vs 61.1 °C Around 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
Lower annual home energy cost 25.05 $/year vs 30.11 $/year More than 15% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 91.1 $/year vs 109.5 $/year More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
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 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 9050  vs FX 8320 

clock speed

Itanium 9050
1.6 GHz
FX 8320
3.5 GHz

L2 cache

Itanium 9050
24 MB
FX 8320
8 MB

L3 cache

Itanium 9050
24 MB
FX 8320
8 MB

TDP

FX 8320
125W

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Itanium 9050  vs
FX 8320 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 3.5 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 9050  vs
FX 8320 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 24 MB 8 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 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 - 61.1°C

power consumption

TDP 104W 125W
Annual home energy cost 25.05 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 91.1 $/year 109.5 $/year
Typical power consumption 84.5W 101.56W

bus

Clock speed 533 MHz 2,600 MHz
Intel Itanium 9050
Report a correction
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus