Intel Itanium 9130M vs AMD FX 8350 |
Released October, 2007
Intel Itanium 9130M
- 1.66 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9130M
 | Much lower typical power consumption 84.5W | | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 |
| | Much more l3 cache per core 4 MB/core | | Much lower annual home energy cost 25.05 $/year |
VS
Released October, 2012
AMD FX 8350
- 4 GHz
- Octa core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 8350
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much higher clock speed 4 GHz |
| | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 84.5W | vs | 159.66W | More than 45% lower typical power consumption | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 4 | vs | 1 | 3 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 4x more l3 cache per core | |||
| 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 | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 2 MB | 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 1.66 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 | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 2 | 6 more threads | |||
| Newer | Oct, 2012 | vs | Oct, 2007 | Release date over 5 years later | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Itanium 9130M vs FX 8350
clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9130M | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.66 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 | |
details | Itanium 9130M | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 8 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 4 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 | |
| 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 | 667 MHz | 2,600 MHz | |
 Intel Itanium 9130M  Report a correction |  AMD FX 8350 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $264 | $128 | |
| 3770K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $350 | $128 | |
| 6700K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $180 | $128 | |
| 8370 vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $100 | $128 | |
| 6300 vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $250 | $128 | |
| 6600K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $190 | $128 | |
| 4460 vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $230 | $128 | |
| 9590 vs 8350 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $230 | $248 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS | |
| $350 | $250 | |
| 6700K vs 6600K | ||
