Key Differences
In short — Core i5-5675C outperforms the cheaper FX-8150 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8150 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-5675C is 1311 days newer than the cheaper FX-8150.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-5675C
- Performs up to 5% better in Dead Space than FX-8150 - 151 vs 144 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8150 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8150 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8150
- Up to 9% cheaper than Core i5-5675C - $59.97 vs $65.81
- Up to 4% better value when playing Dead Space than Core i5-5675C - $0.46 vs $0.48 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-5675C - 8 vs 4 threads
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • May 15th, 2015
FPS
151
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.48/FPS
95.83333333333334%
Price, €
€73.05
91%
FPS Winner
Buy for €73.05 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 12 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
FPS
144
95.36423841059603%
Value, €/FPS
€0.46/FPS
100%
Price, €
€66.57
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €66.57 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 13 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • May 15th, 2015
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-5675C | vs | AMD FX-8150 |
---|---|---|
May 15th, 2015 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
Core i5 | Collection | FX |
Broadwell | Codename | Zambezi |
Intel Socket 1150 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
4 | Threads | 8 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
31.0x | Multiplier | 18.0x |
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |