Key Differences
In short — Xeon W3680 outperforms FX-6200 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon W3680 is 713 days older than FX-6200.
Advantages of Intel Xeon W3680
- Performs up to 1% better in Battlefield 1 than FX-6200 - 230 vs 228 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6200 - 12 vs 6 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Consumes up to 4% less energy than Intel Xeon W3680 - 125 vs 130 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon W3680 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield 1
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Xeon W3680
Server/Workstation • Mar 16th, 2010
FX-6200
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon W3680 | vs | AMD FX-6200 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 16th, 2010 | Release Date | Feb 27th, 2012 |
| Xeon | Collection | FX |
| Westmere-EP | Codename | Zambezi |
| Intel Socket 1366 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 3 |
12 | Threads | 6 |
| 3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
| 3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
| 130 W | TDP | 125 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
25.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Yes | Overclockable | Yes |
