Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600 outperforms the cheaper FX-4300 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-4300 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-11600 is 3066 days newer than the cheaper FX-4300.
Advantages of AMD FX-4300
- Up to 84% cheaper than Core i5-11600 - CA$36.09 vs CA$218.99
- Up to 82% better value when playing Deathloop than Core i5-11600 - CA$0.21 vs CA$1.16 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600
- Performs up to 12% better in Deathloop than FX-4300 - 188 vs 168 FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than AMD FX-4300 - 65 vs 95 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-4300 - 12 vs 4 threads
Deathloop
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
168
89%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.21/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.09
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.09 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 200 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
188
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.16/FPS
18%
Price, CA$
CA$218.99
16%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$218.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 200 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4300 | vs | Intel Core i5-11600 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Vishera | Codename | Rocket Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
4 | Threads | 12 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.8 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
19.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |