In Rust, the Xeon E5-2650 is same performance as the FX-8300. However, it's a worse value for money, as it's $24 more expensive!
Xeon E5-2650
No clear advantages
FX-8300
- Is 7 months and 17 days newer – Oct 23, 2012 vs Mar 06, 2012
- Is 7 months and 17 days newer
- Up to 18% cheaper – $106.06 vs $129.94
- Up to 18% cheaper
- Up to 18% better value in Rust – $0.50 vs $0.61/FPS
- Up to 18% better value in Rust
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Rust FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-2650 vs FX-8300: Comparison of performance and price
Xeon E5-2650
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
210 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
42 FPS
100%
Price, $
$129.94
81%
Value, $/FPS
$0.61/FPS
82%
FX-8300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
210 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
42 FPS
100%
Price, $
$106.06
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.5/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-2650 vs FX-8300 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-2650 vs FX-8300 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-2650
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2 GHz
61%
Turbo Frequency
2.8 GHz
72%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
FX-8300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
40%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.9 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-2650 Mar 6th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-8300 Oct 23rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | AM3+ |
| 95W | Power Consumption | 95W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1866 MHz (DDR3) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
