Key Differences
In short — Core i3-10320 outperforms the cheaper FX-6200 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-6200 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i3-10320 is 2985 days newer than the cheaper FX-6200.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-10320
- Performs up to 18% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than FX-6200 - 134 vs 114 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-6200 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6200 - 8 vs 6 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Up to 79% cheaper than Core i3-10320 - €42.6 vs €199.5
- Up to 75% better value when playing Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Core i3-10320 - €0.37 vs €1.49 per FPS
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Buy for €199.5 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 116 minutes ago
Buy for €42.6 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 116 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-10320 | vs | AMD FX-6200 |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Feb 27th, 2012 |
Core i3 | Collection | FX |
Comet Lake | Codename | Zambezi |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 3 |
8 | Threads | 6 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
4.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
38.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
UHD Graphics 630 | Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
No | Overclockable | Yes |