In Atomfall, the Core i5-650 is slightly slower than the FX-6300 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $27 more expensive!
Core i5-650
- Consumes up to 23% less energy – 73 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 23% less energy
FX-6300
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall – 189 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall
- Is 2 years and 9 months newer – Oct 23, 2012 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 years and 9 months newer
- Up to 40% cheaper – $40.65 vs $67.72
- Up to 40% cheaper
- Up to 42% better value in Atomfall – $0.21 vs $0.36/FPS
- Up to 42% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i5-650 vs FX-6300: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-650
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
188 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
99%
Price, $
$67.72
60%
Value, $/FPS
$0.36/FPS
58%
FX-6300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
189 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
142 FPS
100%
Price, $
$40.65
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.21/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-650 vs FX-6300 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-650 vs FX-6300 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
91%
Turbo Frequency
3.466 GHz
85%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1333 MHz
71%
FX-6300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-650 Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-6300 Oct 23rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| $176.00 | MSRP | $132.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1156 | Socket | AM3+ |
73W | Power Consumption | 95W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1333 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 1866 MHz (DDR3) |
| Intel HD | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
