Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2667 v3 outperforms FX-6200 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2667 v3 is 924 days newer than FX-6200.
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Consumes up to 7% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 - 125 vs 135 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3
- Performs up to 14% better in Rust than FX-6200 - 174 vs 152 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6200 - 8 vs 6 threads
Rust
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
FX-6200
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Xeon E5-2667 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6200 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 27th, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 8th, 2014 |
| FX | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Zambezi | Codename | Gainestown, Haswell-E/EP, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge-EP/EX |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| 3 | Cores | 8 |
| 6 | Threads | 8 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
4.1 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 135 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 19.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
