Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms FX-6200 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is 2410 days newer than FX-6200.
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Consumes up to 31% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - 125 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
- Performs up to 7% better in PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds than FX-6200 - 293 vs 273 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6200 - 24 vs 6 threads
PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
FPS
293
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.17/FPS
100%
Price, €
€635
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €635 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 11039 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6200 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X |
---|---|---|
Feb 27th, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 3rd, 2018 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Zambezi | Codename | Colfax |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
3 | Cores | 12 |
6 | Threads | 24 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.1 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 180 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
19.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |