core 2 quad vs amd fx 4300

[lovneet]

hi,

i want to know which is superior .....
amd fx 4300 vs core 2 quad vs amd athlon x4.


thanks for answers...

 

[herrwizo]

Depends on the exact model of C2Q and Athlon II X4. If we assume C2Q 9550 and Athlon II X4 955, they are all very similar in terms of performance. And they can all be overclocked as well.

 

[Saif Uv]

The best would be fx 4300 because its has new architecture and its socket is still supported by AMD . Which means you can put any processor from next generation of AMD SteamRoller into its place when you`d like to have a new processor.
And its a lil Faster than the top of the line processors of other two generations.
fx 4300 is the best choice here.

Well i would recommend fx 6300 if you plan on playing games.

Hope this helps.

 

[Saif Uv]

Have a look.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/562/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4300_vs_Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q9650.html
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-955-vs-AMD-FX-4300
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/188/AMD_Athlon_II_X4_650_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-4300.html

 

[Gaidax]

Core2Quad is very old, it was great back at a time, but so was Pentium 2...

Also... this may help: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

 

[Saif Uv]

And also the Athlon II x4 955 was released in 2009 . Core 2 quad q9650 in 2008.
But the fx 4300 was released in 2012 i.e it has the latest architecture AMD can offer .
q9650 and x4 955 have older architecture and lack lots of new instructions.

So yeah fx 4300.

 

[herrwizo]

You would be surprised, mate. FX4300 is SLOWER than the old Phenom (and even Athlon) X4s clock-for-clock. You need to overclock it to 4 GHz or above get the performance on par. We have several of them in our company, and they were supposed to be an upgrade, when in fact they were a downgrade. This architecture really sucks.

The only CPU in this line that seems to be a solid upgrade over 6-7 years old CPUs is FX6300. No less.

 

[Saif Uv]

True . Only fx 6300 would make a considerable difference .

 

[Saif Uv]

You would be surprised, mate. FX4300 is SLOWER than the old Phenom (and even Athlon) X4s clock-for-clock. You need to overclock it to 4 GHz or above get the performance on par. We have several of them in our company, and they were supposed to be an upgrade, when in fact they were a downgrade. This architecture really sucks.

The only CPU in this line that seems to be a solid upgrade over 6-7 years old CPUs is FX6300. No less.

This really is surprising though. its hard to believe AMD did that .

 

[Gaidax]

You would be surprised, mate. FX4300 is SLOWER than the old Phenom (and even Athlon) X4s clock-for-clock. You need to overclock it to 4 GHz or above get the performance on par. We have several of them in our company, and they were supposed to be an upgrade, when in fact they were a downgrade. This architecture really sucks.

The only CPU in this line that seems to be a solid upgrade over 6-7 years old CPUs is FX6300. No less.

This really is surprising though. its hard to believe AMD did that .

Nothing surprising, AMD's "new" architecture is full of holes like Swiss cheese. In case of FX-4300 it combines both the infamous terrible single core performance with lack of additional cores to offset it.

Core performance was gutted for better scalability in false hopes everyone will start making highly threaded apps in droves.

They really should have improved Phenom instead of starting this whole FX mess.

The fact that 2008 processor from Intel and 2009 processor from AMD nearly equals 2012 processor from AMD performance-wise is VERY telling how much of a failure Buldozer/Piledriver are and why AMD is in the gutter now.

 

[Saif Uv]

Yeah phenom chips were nice .
Maybe AMD could`ve really be on par with intel if they improved phenom and athlon and took them to an extreme level. Who knows?
Phenom X4 965 may really be on par with fx 4300 or even better.
Because fx 4300 is an entry level chip but phenom X4 965 is a top of the line chip .

And That way q9650 is 15% faster than i3 2100 . And 30% faster than i5 650
So intel made trash too? Really?

And 2008 chips from intel outmatch fx 4300 ???
Sorry but im not buying it.
[im smelling fanboyism]

 

[gamerk316]

Yeah phenom chips were nice .
Maybe AMD could`ve really be on par with intel if they improved phenom and athlon and took them to an extreme level. Who knows?
Phenom X4 965 may really be on par with fx 4300 or even better.
Because fx 4300 is an entry level chip but phenom X4 965 is a top of the line chip .

And That way q9650 is 15% faster than i3 2100 . And 30% faster than i5 650
So intel made trash too? Really?

And 2008 chips from intel outmatch fx 4300 ???
Sorry but im not buying it.
[im smelling fanboyism]

The FX series was designed to sacrifice per-core performance for scalability. Problem is, games perform better on fewer, stronger cores. As a result, PII, clock for clock, outperformed Bulldozer at launch. Piledriver chips are about 5-10% better clock for clock.

As a general rule, a 4 core FX performs about the same as the Phenom II X4 at the same clock, and a PII X4 performs about 5-10% better then a similarly priced Core 2 Quad.

Point being, a Q9550 probably performs about the same as the FX-4300, with a slight edge to the FX-4300, but not much (10% maybe).

 

[herrwizo]

^^ As a previous owner of both Q9550 and seeing FX4300 in action at work in same apps, I can only confirm that as a fact. Avoid FX4300 like a plague since it is barely cheaper than FX 6 series and performs much worse.