In Red Dead Redemption 2, the Core i5-7400T is slightly slower than the FX-6200 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $45 more expensive!
Core i5-7400T
- Is 4 years and 10 months newer – Jan 03, 2017 vs Feb 27, 2012
- Is 4 years and 10 months newer
- Consumes up to 72% less energy – 35 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 72% less energy
FX-6200
- Up to 4% faster in Red Dead Redemption 2 – 230 vs 222 FPS
- Up to 4% faster in Red Dead Redemption 2
- Up to 58% cheaper – $32.97 vs $78.02
- Up to 58% cheaper
- Up to 60% better value in Red Dead Redemption 2 – $0.14 vs $0.35/FPS
- Up to 60% better value in Red Dead Redemption 2
Red Dead Redemption 2 FPS Calculator
Core i5-7400T vs FX-6200: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-7400T
Jan 3rd, 2017
Average FPS
222 FPS
97%
Min 1% FPS
159 FPS
96%
Price, $
$78.02
42%
Value, $/FPS
$0.35/FPS
40%
FX-6200
Feb 27th, 2012
Average FPS
230 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
165 FPS
100%
Price, $
$32.97
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.14/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-7400T vs FX-6200 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-7400T vs FX-6200 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-7400T
Jan 3rd, 2017
Cores
4-core
67%
L3 Cache
6 MB
75%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
63%
Turbo Frequency
3 GHz
73%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 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 i5-7400T Jan 3rd, 2017 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-6200 Feb 27th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Jan 3rd, 2017 | Release Date | Feb 27th, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1151 | Socket | AM3+ |
35W | Power Consumption | 125W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2400 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
| HD 630 | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
