GadgetVersus Smartphone Processor Graphics card Language ⏷ English French
EN ⏷
FR ☰
- Home page
- ⏵ Processor
- ⏵ Comparison
Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 vs AMD FX-6300
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 on one side and the AMD FX-6300 on the other side, also their respective performances with the benchmarks. The first is dedicated to the server sector, It has 6 cores, 12 threads, a maximum frequency of 3.2GHz. The second is used on the desktop segment, it has a total of 6 cores, 6 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 3.8 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in Geekbench and Cinebench.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specification comparison:
| Processor | Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | AMD FX-6300 |
| Market (main) | Server | Desktop |
| ISA | x86-64 (64 bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) |
| Microarchitecture | Haswell | Piledriver |
| Core name | Haswell-EP | Vishera |
| Family | Xeon E5-2600 v3 | FX-6000 |
| Part number(s), S-Spec | CM8064401831400, BX80644E52620V3, QGSH, SR207 | FD6300WMW6KHK, FD6300WMHKBOX, FX-6300 Black Edition |
| Release date | Q3 2014 | Q4 2012 |
| Lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm SOI |
| Transistors | 5,240,000,000 | 1,200,000,000 |
| Cores | 12 | 6 |
| Threads | 24 | 6 |
| Base frequency | 2.4 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Turbo frequency | 3.2 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| High performance cores | 12 Cores 24 Threads @ 2.4 / 3.2 GHz | 6 Cores 6 Threads @ 3.5 / 3.8 GHz |
| Cache memory | 30 MB | 8 MB |
| Max memory capacity | 1,536 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory types | DDR4 1600/1866 | DDR3-1866 |
| Max # of memory channels | 8 | 2 |
| Max memory bandwidth | 118 GB/s | 29.9 GB/s |
| Max PCIe lanes | 80 | 16 |
| TDP | 170 W | 95 W |
| Suggested PSU | 700W ATX Power Supply  | 600W ATX Power Supply | |
| GPU integrated graphics | None | None |
| Socket | LGA2011-3 | AM3+ |
| Compatible motherboard | Socket LGA 2011-3 Motherboard | Socket AM3+ Motherboard |
| Maximum temperature | 72.6°C | 70.5°C |
| Crypto engine | AES New Instructions, Secure Key | AES Instructions |
| Security | OS Guard, Trusted Execution Technology, Execute Disable Bit | Enhanced Virus Protection |
| CPU-Z single thread | 281 | 223 |
| CPU-Z multi thread | 4,204 | 1,022 |
| Cinebench R15 single thread | 123 | 96 |
| Cinebench R15 multi-thread | 1,527 | 366 |
| Cinebench R20 single thread | 277 | 182 |
| Cinebench R20 multi-thread | 3,871 | 837 |
| Cinebench R23 single thread | 658 | 555 |
| Cinebench R23 multi-thread | 8,454 | 2,549 |
| PassMark single thread | 1,678 | 1,471 |
| PassMark CPU Mark | 13,132 | 4,124 |
| (Linux)Geekbench 4 single core | 3,523 | 2,676 |
| (Linux)Geekbench 4 multi-core | 24,728 | 8,944 |
| (Linux)Geekbench 5 single core | 749 | 659 |
| (Linux)Geekbench 5 multi-core | 6,816 | 2,470 |
| (Linux)Geekbench 6 single core | 1,120 | 465 |
| (Linux)Geekbench 6 multi-core | 6,038 | 1,458 |
| (SGEMM)GFLOPS Performance | 371.9 GFLOPS | 67.2 GFLOPS |
| (Multi-core / watt performance)Performance / watt ratio | 145 pts / W | 94 pts / W |
| Amazon |  | |
| eBay |  | |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors. Suggested PSU: We assume that we have an ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.We see that the two processors have an equivalent number of cores, the turbo frequency of AMD FX-6300 is bigger, that the PDT of Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 is lower. The Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 was designed earlier.
Performance comparison with the benchmarks:
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench.
| CPU-Z - Multi-Thread & Single Thread Score |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 281 4,204 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 223 1,022 |
In single core, the difference is 26%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 311%.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.
| Cinebench R15 - Multi-Thread & Single Thread Score |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 123 1,527 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 96 366 |
In single core, the difference is 28%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 317%.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.
| Cinebench R20 - Multi-Thread & Single Thread Score |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 277 3,871 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 182 837 |
In single core, the difference is 52%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 362%.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.
| Cinebench R23 - Multi-Thread & Single Thread Score |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 658 8,454 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 555 2,549 |
In single core, the difference is 19%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 232%.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.Cinebench R23 is cross-platform testing software that allows you to assess the hardware capabilities of a device such as a computer, tablet, server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant. The test scene contains no less than 2,000 objects and more than 300,000 polygons in total.
| PassMark - CPU Mark & single thread |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 1,678 13,132 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 1,471 4,124 |
In single core, the difference is 14%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 218%.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity. With Windows:
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Windows |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 3,076 20,273 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 2,518 8,133 |
In single core, the difference is 22%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 149%.With Linux:
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Linux |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 3,523 24,728 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 2,676 8,944 |
In single core, the difference is 32%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 176%.With Mac OS X:
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Mac OS X |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 2,919 20,767 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 2,266 8,231 |
In single core, the difference is 29%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 152%.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software. With Windows:
| Geekbench 5 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Windows |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 728 6,597 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 655 2,333 |
In single core, the difference is 11%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 183%.With Linux:
| Geekbench 5 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Linux |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 749 6,816 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 659 2,470 |
In single core, the difference is 14%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 176%.With macOS:
| Geekbench 5 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - macOS |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 653 5,477 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 593 2,250 |
In single core, the difference is 10%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 143%.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality. With Windows:
| Geekbench 6 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Windows |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 817 5,589 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 446 1,478 |
In single core, the difference is 83%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 278%.With Linux:
| Geekbench 6 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Linux |
| Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | 1,120 6,038 |
| AMD FX-6300 | 465 1,458 |
In single core, the difference is 141%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 314%.Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.Geekbench 6 is a benchmarking platform that is capable of evaluating the performance of a device across multiple operating systems. The software evaluates processor power, with its ability to support different tasks, such as file compression, browsing; GPU computing capabilities, with image editing, video editing, gaming skills, machine learning workloads.
Equivalence:
Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 AMD EquivalentAMD FX-6300 Intel Equivalent
See also:
Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v2Dual Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4Intel Xeon E5-2620 v2Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 GadgetVersus.com © 2024 - About us - XML sitemap - Privacy policy - Advertising policy - Contact
Disclaimer: When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad. Information: We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer's website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.
