Key Differences
In short — Core i5-10400F 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 i5-10400F is 2985 days newer than the cheaper FX-6200.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 11% better in Elden Ring than FX-6200 - 122 vs 110 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 - 12 vs 6 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Up to 57% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - $31.32 vs $73.09
- Up to 52% better value when playing Elden Ring than Core i5-10400F - $0.32 vs $0.66 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-10400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
122
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.66/FPS
48%
Price, €
€81.13
42%
FPS Winner
Buy for €81.13 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 17962 minutes ago
Buy for €34.77 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 17961 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-10400F | vs | AMD FX-6200 |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Feb 27th, 2012 |
Core i5 | Collection | FX |
Comet Lake | Codename | Zambezi |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 3 |
12 | Threads | 6 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
29.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
No | Overclockable | Yes |