In Control, the Core i7-950 is same performance as the FX-6300. However, it's a better value for money, as it's $10 cheaper!
Core i7-950
- Up to 24% cheaper – $31.00 vs $40.65
- Up to 24% cheaper
- Up to 25% better value in Control – $0.12 vs $0.16/FPS
- Up to 25% better value in Control
FX-6300
- Is 3 years and 4 months newer – Oct 23, 2012 vs Jun 02, 2009
- Is 3 years and 4 months newer
- Consumes up to 27% less energy – 95 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 27% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Control FPS Calculator
Core i7-950 vs FX-6300: Comparison of performance and price
Core i7-950
Jun 2nd, 2009
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$31
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.12/FPS
100%
FX-6300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$40.65
76%
Value, $/FPS
$0.16/FPS
75%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-950 vs FX-6300 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-950 vs FX-6300 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-950
Jun 2nd, 2009
Cores
4-core
67%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.066 GHz
88%
Turbo Frequency
3.333 GHz
81%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
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 i7-950 Jun 2nd, 2009 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-6300 Oct 23rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 2nd, 2009 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | $132.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | AM3+ |
| 130W | Power Consumption | 95W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1866 MHz (DDR3) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
