In Atomfall, the Core i3-550 is slightly slower than the FX-6200 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $97 more expensive!
Core i3-550
- Consumes up to 42% less energy – 73 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 42% less energy
FX-6200
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall – 187 vs 186 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall
- Is 1 year and 8 months newer – Feb 27, 2012 vs May 30, 2010
- Is 1 year and 8 months newer
- Up to 75% cheaper – $32.97 vs $129.94
- Up to 75% cheaper
- Up to 75% better value in Atomfall – $0.17 vs $0.69/FPS
- Up to 75% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-550 vs FX-6200: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-550
May 30th, 2010
Average FPS
186 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
100%
Price, $
$129.94
25%
Value, $/FPS
$0.69/FPS
25%
FX-6200
Feb 27th, 2012
Average FPS
187 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
100%
Price, $
$32.97
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.17/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-550 vs FX-6200 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-550 vs FX-6200 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-550
May 30th, 2010
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
4 MB
50%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
84%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1333 MHz
100%
FX-6200
Feb 27th, 2012
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-550 May 30th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-6200 Feb 27th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| May 30th, 2010 | Release Date | Feb 27th, 2012 |
| $138.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1156 | Socket | AM3+ |
73W | Power Consumption | 125W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1333 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
| Intel HD | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
