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 ST-Ericsson NovaThor A9500

Reasons to consider the
ST-Ericsson NovaThor A9500

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 1.2 GHz Around 3x higher clock speed
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs ARM A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 6 vs 2 Three times as many threads
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 1 years later

Features Key features of the NovaThor A9500  vs FX 6300 

clock speed

NovaThor A9500
1.2 GHz
FX 6300
3.5 GHz

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

NovaThor A9500  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 1.2 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Hexa core

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label ARM Mali 400 MP N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in

details

NovaThor A9500  vs
FX 6300 
Architecture ARM x86-64
Threads 2 6
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm

power consumption

Typical power consumption N/A 77.19W
ST-Ericsson NovaThor A9500
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus