In Atomfall, the Core i5-650 is same performance as the FX-6200. However, it's a much worse value for money, as it's $35 more expensive!
Core i5-650
- Consumes up to 42% less energy – 73 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 42% less energy
FX-6200
- Is 2 years and 1 month newer – Feb 27, 2012 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 years and 1 month newer
- Up to 52% cheaper – $32.97 vs $68.17
- Up to 52% cheaper
- Up to 53% better value in Atomfall – $0.17 vs $0.36/FPS
- Up to 53% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i5-650 vs FX-6200: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-650
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
186 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
139 FPS
100%
Price, $
$68.17
48%
Value, $/FPS
$0.36/FPS
47%
FX-6200
Feb 27th, 2012
Average FPS
186 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
139 FPS
100%
Price, $
$32.97
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.17/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-650 vs FX-6200 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-650 vs FX-6200 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-650
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
4 MB
50%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
84%
Turbo Frequency
3.466 GHz
85%
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 i5-650 Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-6200 Feb 27th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Release Date | Feb 27th, 2012 |
| $176.00 | 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 |
