In Atomfall, the FX-4300 is slightly faster than the Core i3-330M and it's also a much better value for money, as it's $56 cheaper!
FX-4300
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall – 185 vs 181 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall
- Is 2 years and 9 months newer – Oct 23, 2012 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 years and 9 months newer
- Up to 57% cheaper – $42.94 vs $98.95
- Up to 57% cheaper
- Up to 57% better value in Atomfall – $0.23 vs $0.54/FPS
- Up to 57% better value in Atomfall
Core i3-330M
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 35 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-4300 vs Core i3-330M: Comparison of performance and price
FX-4300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
185 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
139 FPS
100%
Price, $
$42.94
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.23/FPS
100%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
181 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
135 FPS
97%
Price, $
$98.95
43%
Value, $/FPS
$0.54/FPS
43%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-4300 vs Core i3-330M in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-4300 vs Core i3-330M in core CPU performance specifications
FX-4300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
4 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
3 MB
75%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
56%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
57%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-4300 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| $122.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Laptop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGAG1 |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 35 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 1066 MHz (DDR3) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
