Intel Itanium 9320 vs AMD FX 4300 |
Released February, 2010
Intel Itanium 9320
- 1.33 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9320
 | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 8 | | Significantly more l3 cache 16 MB |
| | Much more l3 cache per core 4 MB/core | | More threads 8 |
VS
Released October, 2012
AMD FX 4300
- 3.8 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 4300
| | Much higher clock speed 3.8 GHz | | Much higher turbo clock speed 4 GHz |
| | Much more l2 cache 4 MB | | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 8 | vs | 1 | 7 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly more l3 cache | 16 MB | vs | 4 MB | 4x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 4x more l3 cache per core | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher clock speed | 3.8 GHz | vs | 1.33 GHz | More than 2.8x higher clock speed | |||
| Much higher turbo clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 1.47 GHz | Around 2.8x higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Much more l2 cache | 4 MB | vs | 2 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 77.19W | vs | 125.94W | Around 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Newer | Oct, 2012 | vs | Feb, 2010 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | vs | 37.34 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | vs | 135.78 $/year | Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Itanium 9320 vs FX 4300
clock speed
turbo clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9320 | vs | FX 4300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.33 GHz | 3.8 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1.47 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 1248 | |||
| AM3+ | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 155W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 37.34 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 135.78 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 125.94W | 77.19W | |
details | Itanium 9320 | vs | FX 4300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 4 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 16 MB | 4 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 8 | 1 | |
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 | |
 Intel Itanium 9320  Report a correction |  AMD FX 4300 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $80 | $100 | |
| 4300 vs 6300 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $80 | $152 | |
| 4300 vs 3330 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $80 | $75 | |
| 4300 vs 860K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $80 | $200 | |
| 4300 vs 965 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $80 | $125 | |
| 4300 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $80 | $128 | |
| 4300 vs 8350 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $80 | $100 | |
| 4300 vs 4100 | ||
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 | ||
