Core i7-4700MQ vs FX-8300

Core i7-4700MQ vs FX-8300 Performance Spectrum

Core i7-4700MQ

4 / 8

5,349

+0.3%

5,333

0.0%

Athlon X4 760K

Ryzen Embedded V1202B

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core i7-4700MQ vs FX-8300 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i7-4700MQ vs FX-8300: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i7-4700MQ

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 47W instead of 95W, a 48W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8300 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.0 vs 27.1 PassMark/$ ($383 MSRP vs $197 MSRP).

FX-8300

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $186 less on MSRP ($197 MSRP vs $383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 93.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 27.1 vs 14.0 PassMark/$ ($197 MSRP vs $383 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,333 vs 5,349).
❌102.1% higher power demand at 95W vs 47W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-4700MQ better than FX-8300?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, FX-8300 is ahead with a 8.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-4700MQ pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-4700MQ is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i7-4700MQ is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i7-4700MQ comes in 94.4% more expensive on MSRP at $383 MSRP versus $197 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. FX-8300 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 93.8% better value on paper (27.1 vs 14.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3+.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i7-4700MQ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-4700MQ vs FX-8300 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i7-4700MQ

The Core i7-4700MQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 May 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 47 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,349 points. Launch price was $288.

FX-8300

The FX-8300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,333 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-4700MQ packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the FX-8300 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8300 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i7-4700MQ versus 4.2 GHz on the FX-8300 — a 21.1% clock advantage for the FX-8300 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i7-4700MQ uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the FX-8300 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-4700MQ scores 5,349 against the FX-8300's 5,333 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i7-4700MQ.

Feature	Core i7-4700MQ	FX-8300
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	8 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz	4.2 GHz+24%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	3.3 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	—
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	8192 kB+3100%
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Vishera (2012−2015)
PassMark	5,349	5,333

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-4700MQ uses the PGA946 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-8300 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-4700MQ	FX-8300
Socket	PGA946	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-4700MQ was priced at $383, while the FX-8300 came in at $197. On launch pricing ($383 vs $197), FX-8300 was $186 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-4700MQ delivers 14.0 pts/$ vs 27.1 pts/$ for the FX-8300 — making the FX-8300 the 63.9% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-4700MQ	FX-8300
MSRP	$383	$197-49%
Performance per Dollar	14.0	27.1+94%
Release Date	2013	2012

Search Core i7-4700MQ on Amazon

Search FX-8300 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.