Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F 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 i9-10900F is 3123 days newer than the cheaper FX-8150.
Advantages of AMD FX-8150
- Up to 72% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $64.03 vs $225.0
- Up to 64% better value when playing World of Warcraft than Core i9-10900F - $0.42 vs $1.17 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 25% better in World of Warcraft than FX-8150 - 192 vs 154 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8150 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8150 - 20 vs 8 threads
World of Warcraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Buy for $64.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1995 minutes ago
Buy for $225 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1996 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8150 | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i9 |
Zambezi | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 20 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
18.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |