FX-8370 vs Xeon E3-1230 v2

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E3-1230 v2
2012
4 cores / 8 threads, 69 Watt
3.90
+0.5%
FX-8370
2014
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.88

Xeon E3-1230 v2 outperforms FX-8370 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14531457
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.720.95
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency5.352.94
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date14 May 2012 (12 years ago)2 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$360$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E3-1230 v2 has 81% better value for money than FX-8370.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370 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)
Threads88
Base clock speed3.3 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)8192 KB
L3 cache8 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography22 nm32 nm
Die size160 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperature66 °C61 °C
Number of transistors1,400 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier-+
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370 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
SocketFCLGA1155AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)69 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVXno data
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Identity Protection+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370 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 Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32.77 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370.

PCIe version3.0n/a

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.

Xeon E3-1230 v2 3.90
+0.5%
FX-8370 3.88

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.

Xeon E3-1230 v2 6199
+0.6%
FX-8370 6165

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.90 3.88
Recency 14 May 2012 2 September 2014
Physical cores 4 8
Chip lithography 22 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 69 Watt 125 Watt

Xeon E3-1230 v2 has a 0.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 81.2% lower power consumption.

FX-8370, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 100% more physical cores.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370.

Be aware that Xeon E3-1230 v2 is a server/workstation processor while FX-8370 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1230 v2 and FX-8370, 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.


Intel Xeon E3-1230 v2
Xeon E3-1230 v2
AMD FX-8370
FX-8370

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.


4.4 2765 votes

Rate Xeon E3-1230 v2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 381 vote

Rate FX-8370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E3-1230 v2 or FX-8370, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.