Xeon X5450 vs FX-4300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-4300
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.88
+24.5%

FX-4300 outperforms Xeon X5450 by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-4300 and Xeon X5450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking19882148
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.35no data
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.871.19
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)no data
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)1 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$122no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-4300 and Xeon X5450 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)no data
Threads4no data
Base clock speed3.8 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHzno data
L2 cache4096 KBno data
L3 cacheno data12 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature71 °C63 °C
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.225 V - Max: 1.3875 Vno data
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.35V

Compatibility

Information on FX-4300 and Xeon X5450 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1no data
SocketAM3+LGA771
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-4300 and Xeon X5450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data+
FSB parityno data+

Security technologies

FX-4300 and Xeon X5450 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-4300 and Xeon X5450 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-4300 and Xeon X5450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-4300 and Xeon X5450.

PCIe versionn/ano data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX-4300 1.88
+24.5%
Xeon X5450 1.51

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

FX-4300 2981
+23.9%
Xeon X5450 2406

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

FX-4300 454
+18.8%
Xeon X5450 382

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

FX-4300 1104
Xeon X5450 1105
+0.1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.88 1.51
Recency 23 October 2012 1 October 2007
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 120 Watt

FX-4300 has a 24.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 26.3% lower power consumption.

The FX-4300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X5450 in performance tests.

Note that FX-4300 is a desktop processor while Xeon X5450 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-4300 and Xeon X5450, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD FX-4300
FX-4300
Intel Xeon X5450
Xeon X5450

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 1742 votes

Rate FX-4300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 321 vote

Rate Xeon X5450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-4300 or Xeon X5450, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.