In Atomfall, the FX-4300 is slower than the Core Ultra 9 285. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $485 cheaper!
FX-4300
- Up to 91% cheaper – $49.00 vs $534.00
- Up to 91% cheaper
- Up to 88% better value in Atomfall – $0.26 vs $2.15/FPS
- Up to 88% better value in Atomfall
Core Ultra 9 285
- Up to 33% faster in Atomfall – 248 vs 186 FPS
- Up to 33% faster in Atomfall
- Is 12 years and 3 months newer – Jan 27, 2025 vs Oct 23, 2012
- Is 12 years and 3 months newer
- Consumes up to 32% less energy – 65 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 32% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-4300 vs Core Ultra 9 285: Comparison of performance and price
FX-4300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
186 FPS
75%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
75%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 9 285
Jan 27th, 2025
Average FPS
248 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
186 FPS
100%
Price, $
$534
9%
Value, $/FPS
$2.15/FPS
12%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-4300 vs Core Ultra 9 285 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-4300 vs Core Ultra 9 285 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-4300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
4-core
17%
L3 Cache
4 MB
11%
Base Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
71%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
29%
Core Ultra 9 285
Jan 27th, 2025
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.5 GHz
66%
Turbo Frequency
5.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-4300 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 9 285 Jan 27th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 27th, 2025 |
$122.00 | MSRP | $579.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1851 |
| 95W | Power Consumption | 65W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
