AMD FX-8150
vs
AMD Athlon II X3 440
vs
9
5
Select any two CPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game FX-8150 Athlon II X3 440
PlayerUnknowns Battlegrounds 3% 240%
Call of Duty: WWII 7% 207%
Assassins Creed: Origins 15% 278%
FIFA 18 30% 130%
Star Wars: Battlefront 2 15% 278%
Grand Theft Auto VI 20% 293%
Far Cry 5 22% 157%
Pro Evolution Soccer 2018 33% 120%
Need For Speed Payback 15% 278%
ARK: Survival Evolved 19% 290%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD FX-8150 is massively better than the AMD Athlon II X3 440 when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

The FX-8150 was released over a year more recently than the Athlon II X3, and so the FX-8150 is likely to have better levels of support, and will be more optimized for running the latest games.

The FX-8150 has 5 more cores than the Athlon II X3. With 8 cores, the FX-8150 is much less likely to struggle with the latest games, or bottleneck high-end graphics cards when running them.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The FX-8150 and Athlon II X3 are not from the same family of CPUs, so their clock speeds are by no means directly comparable. Bear in mind, then, that while the FX-8150 has a 0.6 GHz faster frequency, this is not always an indicator that it will be superior in performance, despite frequency being crucial when trying to avoid GPU bottlenecking. In this case, however, the difference is enough that it possibly indicates the superiority of the FX-8150.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The FX-8150 has a 6656 KB bigger L2 cache than the Athlon II X3, and although the Athlon II X3 does not appear to have an L3 cache, its larger L2 cache means that it wins out in this area.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

The Athlon II X3 has a 30 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the FX-8150. However, the FX-8150 was created with a 13 nm smaller manufacturing technology. Overall, by taking both into account, the Athlon II X3 is likely the CPU with the lower heat production and power requirements, but there really isn't much in it.

Can I Run It

Check any game system requirements

CPU Core Details

CPU CodenameZambeziRana
MoBo SocketSocket AM3+Socket AM2+ / AM3
Notebook CPUnono
Release Date12 Oct 201125 Jan 2010
CPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved

CPU Technical Specifications

CPU Cores8vs3
CPU Threads8vs-
Clock Speed3.6 GHzvs3 GHz
Turbo Frequency3.9 GHzvs-
Max TDP125 Wvs95 W
Lithography32 nmvs45 nm
Bit Width64 Bitvs-
Max Temperature61°Cvs-
Virtualization Technologynovsno
Comparison

CPU Cache and Memory

L1 Cache Size384 KBvs384 KB
L2 Cache Size8192 KBvs1536 KB
L3 Cache Size8 MBvs-
Memory Channels-vs-
ECC Memory Supportnovsno
Comparison

CPU Graphics

Graphicsno
Base GPU Frequency-vs-
Max GPU Frequency-vs-
DirectX-vs-
Displays Supported-vs-
Comparison

CPU Package and Version Specifications

Package Size-vs-
Revision-vs-
PCIe Revision-vs-
PCIe Configurations-vs-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

CPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewFX-8150 is a high-end CPU based on the 32nm Bulldozer architecture.

It offers 8 Physical Cores (8 Logical), initially clocked at 3.6GHz, which may go up to 3.9GHz and 8MB of L3 Cache.
Among its many features, Turbo Core and Virtualization are activated and the clock multiplier is unlocked, meaning it can be overclocked easily.

The processor DOES NOT integrated any graphics. and has a rated board TDP of 125W.

Its performance is very good and sufficient for extreme gaming.
The Athlon II series is based on the AMD K10 architecture and derived from the Phenom II series. However, unlike its Phenom siblings, it does not contain any L3 Cache. There are two Athlon II dies: the dual-core Regor die with 1 MB L2 Cache per core and the four-core Propus with 512 KB per core. Regor is a native dual-core design with lower TDP and additional L2 to offset the removal of L3 cache. The three core Rana is derived from the Propus quad-core design, with one core disabled.