Xeon X3470 vs FX-8100
Aggregate performance score
FX-8100 outperforms Xeon X3470 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8100 and Xeon X3470 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1731 | 1889 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 2.54 | 2.05 |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | no data |
| Release date | 12 October 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 July 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
FX-8100 and Xeon X3470 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 8 MB Intel® Smart Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 73 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8100 and Xeon X3470 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3+ | FCLGA1156,LGA1156 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8100 and Xeon X3470. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
Security technologies
FX-8100 and Xeon X3470 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8100 and Xeon X3470 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8100 and Xeon X3470. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8100 and Xeon X3470.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.65 | 2.14 |
| Recency | 12 October 2011 | 1 July 2009 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
FX-8100 has a 23.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
The FX-8100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X3470 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8100 is a desktop processor while Xeon X3470 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8100 and Xeon X3470, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
