Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — FX-6200 outperforms the more expensive FX-6300 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing FX-6200 is 239 days older than the more expensive FX-6300.
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Up to 42% cheaper than FX-6300 - $42.85 vs $74.04
- Up to 41% better value when playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than FX-6300 - $0.23 vs $0.39 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-6300 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-6300
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than AMD FX-6200 - 95 vs 125 Watts
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Buy for $42.85 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 173 minutes ago
Buy for $74.04 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 173 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
AMD FX-6200 | vs | AMD FX-6300 |
---|---|---|
Feb 27th, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
FX | Collection | FX |
Zambezi | Codename | Vishera |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
3 | Cores | 6 |
6 | Threads | 6 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.1 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 95 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
19.0x | Multiplier | 17.5x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |