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 AMD FX-6200
- Up to 57% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - $42.85 vs $99.95
- Up to 51% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-10400F - $0.26 vs $0.53 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-10400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 13% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than FX-6200 - 188 vs 167 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
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Buy for $42.85 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 81 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
188
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.53/FPS
49%
Price, $
$99.95
42%
FPS Winner
Buy for $99.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 82 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6200 | vs | Intel Core i5-10400F |
---|---|---|
Feb 27th, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Zambezi | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
3 | Cores | 6 |
6 | Threads | 12 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
4.1 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
19.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |