Ultra 7 258V vs FX-9830P

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-9830P
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
2.10
Core Ultra 7 258V
2024
8 cores / 8 threads, 17 Watt
12.60
+500%

Core Ultra 7 258V outperforms FX-9830P by a whopping 500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1882613
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Bristol Ridgeno data
Power efficiency5.6569.78
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Lunar Lake (2024)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)24 September 2024 (less than a year ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V 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)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads48
Base clock speed3 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus rateno data37 MHz
L1 cache320 KB192 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per module)2.5 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm3 nm
Die size250 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors3,100 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V 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 configuration11
SocketFP4Intel BGA 2833
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
TSX-+

Security technologies

FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 900 MHz)Arc 140V

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes84

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-9830P 2.10
Ultra 7 258V 12.60
+500%

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-9830P 3332
Ultra 7 258V 20018
+501%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

FX-9830P 3033
Ultra 7 258V 9982
+229%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

FX-9830P 9822
Ultra 7 258V 36479
+271%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

FX-9830P 4
Ultra 7 258V 20
+440%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

FX-9830P 301
Ultra 7 258V 1593
+429%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

FX-9830P 93
Ultra 7 258V 270
+190%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

FX-9830P 1.1
Ultra 7 258V 3.36
+205%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

FX-9830P 2
Ultra 7 258V 7.6
+280%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.10 12.60
Recency 31 May 2016 24 September 2024
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 4 8
Chip lithography 28 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 17 Watt

Ultra 7 258V has a 500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 833.3% more advanced lithography process, and 105.9% lower power consumption.

The Core Ultra 7 258V is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-9830P in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 258V, 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-9830P
FX-9830P
Intel Core Ultra 7 258V
Core Ultra 7 258V

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.


3.6 113 votes

Rate FX-9830P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 14 votes

Rate Core Ultra 7 258V on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-9830P or Core Ultra 7 258V, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.