EPYC 7251 vs FX-8300
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7251 outperforms FX-8300 by a whopping 180% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1923 | 1097 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.15 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.35 | 3.00 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 20 June 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $574 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of FX-8300 and EPYC 7251: 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | no data | 768 KB |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 19200 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8300 and EPYC 7251 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8300 and EPYC 7251. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8300 and EPYC 7251 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8300 and EPYC 7251. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 153.652 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8300 and EPYC 7251.
| PCIe version | n/a | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.08 | 8.63 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 20 June 2017 |
| Threads | 8 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
FX-8300 has 26% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7251, on the other hand, has a 180% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more threads, and a 129% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7251 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD FX-8300 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8300 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7251 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
