OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD FX-8300 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:5295N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:AM3+TDP (Thermal design power):95 W

AMD FX-8300 Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD FX-8300
6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

15%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.7

Sentiment score

10%

8.8

User score

â–¼Worse than 52% of processors
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 67% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–²Better than 67%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 69%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 67% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
â–²Better than 67%
8.8

User score

User score
8.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 50% of models

80%

8.8

Rating

20%

9.0

Popularity

â–²Better than 50%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-fx-8300
amd-fx-8300
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD FX-8300

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
7.9
User score
8.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 67% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.7
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM3+
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, FMA4
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.3 GHz which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
5,295
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 5,295 in PassMark, which is lower than 71.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
32 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 32 nm process node, which is older than that of 97.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 32 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 32 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
8 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,866 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,866 MHz, which is lower than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to 2.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1866 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1866 MHz, which is lower than that of 86.9% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD FX-8300 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 29.5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (70.5 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    70.5 °C vs 100 °C
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 67% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 67% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 20.8% higher sentiment score
    8.7 vs 7.2
  • 20.5% higher user score
    User score
    8.8/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 50% of models

    80%

    8.8

    Rating

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    8.8 vs 7.3
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 29.5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (70.5 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    70.5 °C vs 100 °C
  • 42% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,484 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,484 vs 2,558
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Vishera vs Kaby Lake).
    Vishera vs Kaby Lake
  • 67% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (507 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    507 vs 1,535
  • 65.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,783 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,783 vs 5,209
  • 53.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,295 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,295 vs 11,469
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, FMA4 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, FMA4 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, FMA4 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, FMA4 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 8 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
    2012 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (AM3+ vs FP5).
    AM3+ vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 42% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,484 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,484 vs 2,558
  • 67% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (507 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    507 vs 1,535
  • 65.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,783 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,783 vs 5,209
  • 53.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,295 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,295 vs 11,469
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 4.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 11.5 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (16.5 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    16.5 vs 28
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 45% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Vishera vs Kaby Lake).
    Vishera vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.67x larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    32 nm vs 12 nm
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 78% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (315 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    315 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 75.8% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 41.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1866 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 36.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.11x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W
  • 29.5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (70.5 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    70.5 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2.11x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Toasty Bros
≈ estimated
26/09/2016
Budget review · benchmarks in three games
Verdict
AMD FX-8300 is good value for budget gamers now, though waiting for Zen would be wiser.
8.0
MindBlank Tech
≈ estimated
21/10/2016
Build and benchmarks · gaming tests and cooling check
Verdict
The AMD FX-8300 is a budget CPU that should hold its value, but overclocking it needs serious cooling.
Shop video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 0 · 4

Reviewers agree it offers great value for money, though opinions split on whether its gaming performance is good enough.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD FX-8300

  • Eight cores handle many background jobs at once.
  • A PassMark multi-core score of 5295 is solid for parallel work.
  • The unlocked multiplier lets you change the clock speed.
  • A cooler is included in the box.
  • Up to 32 GB of memory is supported.
  • The 4.2 GHz boost clock lifts the chip when only a few cores are busy.

What we don't like about AMD FX-8300

  • A PassMark single-core score of 1484 makes everyday single programs slow.
  • The 95 W power draw is high for everyday desktop use.
  • DDR3 memory at 1866 MHz limits bandwidth to 29.9 GB/s.
  • There is no integrated graphics, so a graphics card is required.
  • There is no multithreading, so each core runs one thread.

Verdict

For a tight budget, the AMD FX-8300 gives eight cores at a 3.3 GHz base clock. Its multi-core work is its strongest side, with a PassMark score of 5295, while single-core speed is slow at 1484. The chip is unlocked and comes with a cooler, so it can be tuned and used straight out of the box. The main limits are the old 32 nm design and the 95 W power draw. Its 4.2 GHz boost lifts it only when a few cores are busy. It uses DDR3 memory at 1866 MHz, which gives 29.9 GB/s, and there is no integrated graphics or multithreading. It suits a home server, a machine for background jobs, or a second PC that runs many tasks in parallel rather than one fast program.

Compare AMD FX-8300 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD FX-8300 and other processors

No results found