Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i3-3240 outperforms the more expensive FX-4300 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i3-3240 is 50 days older than the more expensive FX-4300.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-3240
- Performs up to 2% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than FX-4300 - 170 vs 167 FPS
- Up to 15% cheaper than FX-4300 - $29.98 vs $35.11
- Up to 13% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than FX-4300 - $0.2 vs $0.23 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD FX-4300 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-4300 doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Buy for €38.97 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 11039 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
FPS
170
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.2/FPS
100%
Price, €
€33.28
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €33.28 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 11039 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4300 | vs | Intel Core i3-3240 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 3rd, 2012 |
FX | Collection | Core i3 |
Vishera | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 4 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 55 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
19.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2500 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |