Xeon E5-4667 v4 vs FX-8300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8300
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
3.36
Xeon E5-4667 v4
2016
18 cores / 36 threads, 135 Watt
12.79
+281%

Xeon E5-4667 v4 outperforms FX-8300 by a whopping 281% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1575601
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.20
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon E5
Power efficiency3.338.92
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Broadwell (2015−2019)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)20 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$5,729

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)18 (Octadeca-Core)
Threads836
Base clock speed3.3 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz3 GHz
Bus typeno dataQPI
Bus rateno data2 × 9.6 GT/s
Multiplierno data22
L2 cache8192 KB4.5 MB
L3 cacheno data45 MB
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size315 mm2456.12 mm2
Maximum core temperature71 °C87 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million7200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.075 V - Max: 1.2875 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4 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 configuration14 (Multiprocessor)
SocketAM3+FCLGA2011
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt135 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AVX2
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data-
PAEno data46 Bit

Security technologies

FX-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data1.5 TB
Max memory channelsno data4
Maximum memory bandwidthno data68 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

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-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4.

PCIe versionn/a3.0
PCI Express lanesno data40

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-8300 3.36
Xeon E5-4667 v4 12.79
+281%

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-8300 5338
Xeon E5-4667 v4 20319
+281%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.36 12.79
Recency 23 October 2012 20 June 2016
Physical cores 8 18
Threads 8 36
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 135 Watt

FX-8300 has 42.1% lower power consumption.

Xeon E5-4667 v4, on the other hand, has a 280.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 125% more physical cores and 350% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon E5-4667 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8300 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8300 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5-4667 v4 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8300 and Xeon E5-4667 v4, 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-8300
FX-8300
Intel Xeon E5-4667 v4
Xeon E5-4667 v4

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.


4.2 2385 votes

Rate FX-8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.9 59 votes

Rate Xeon E5-4667 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8300 or Xeon E5-4667 v4, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.