HowManyFPS Desktop App v1.25.3Track Bottlenecks and Boost Your FPSOpen HowManyFPS.com on your PC to benchmark

CPU Comparison: FPS, Specs & Value

Core Ultra 7 265F vs FX-6300

The Core Ultra 7 265F is much faster than the FX-6300 on average across 100+ games. However, it's a much worse value for money, as it's $292.12 more expensive!

bar_chartBenchmarks groupCommunity calculateFPS Calculator compressBottleneck Calculator

CPU

$332.77View CPUAll CPUs

Up to 267% faster on average across 100+ games
Is 12 years and 5 months newer
Up to 28% better value for money
Up to 187% more expensive – $332.77 vs $40.65

CPU

$40.65View CPUAll CPUs

Up to 187% cheaper – $40.65 vs $332.77

FPS Comparison Across Popular Games

Predicted average FPS at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, based on real game benchmarks.

Resolution

Quality

Paired GPU

View Compare All GPUs

Select GPU

Dota 22013

Core Ultra 7 265F

297FPS

FX-6300

169FPS

League of Legends2009

Core Ultra 7 265F

405FPS

FX-6300

122FPS

Escape From Tarkov2017

Core Ultra 7 265F

262FPS

FX-6300

208FPS

Overwatch 22023

570FPS

525FPS

740FPS

363FPS

Apex Legends2019

Core Ultra 7 265F

389FPS

FX-6300

379FPS

Valorant2020

Core Ultra 7 265F

784FPS

FX-6300

539FPS

Grand Theft Auto V2013

Core Ultra 7 265F

224FPS

FX-6300

185FPS

Specs & Benchmark Comparison

Side-by-side specs, synthetic benchmarks, and key hardware differences.

Scorehelp

Core Ultra 7 265F

68%

FX-6300

Core Ultra 7 265F ranks 65 points higher.

Coreshelp

Core Ultra 7 265F

FX-6300

Core Ultra 7 265F has 14 more cores.

Threadshelp

Core Ultra 7 265F

FX-6300

Core Ultra 7 265F has 14 more threads.

L3 Cachehelp

Core Ultra 7 265F

30 MB

FX-6300

8 MB

Core Ultra 7 265F has 22 MB more L3 cache.

Base Frequencyhelp

Core Ultra 7 265F

2.4 GHz

FX-6300

3.5 GHz

FX-6300 has a 46% higher base clock.

Turbo Frequencyhelp

Core Ultra 7 265F

5.3 GHz

FX-6300

4.1 GHz

Core Ultra 7 265F boosts 29% higher.

TDPhelp

Core Ultra 7 265F

65W

FX-6300

95W

Core Ultra 7 265F draws 30W less power.

Pricehelp

Core Ultra 7 265F

$332.77

FX-6300

$40.65

FX-6300 is $292.12 cheaper.

Core Ultra 7 265FFX-6300

LGA1851

Sockethelp

AM3+

Arrow Lake-S

Codenamehelp

Vishera

Desktop

Segmenthelp

Desktop

No Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPUhelp

On certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

6400 MHz (DDR5)

RAMhelp

1866 MHz (DDR3)

Not Overclockable

Overclock Supporthelp

Overclockable

Frequently Asked Questions

compare_arrowsWhich is better, Core Ultra 7 265F or FX-6300?expand_more

The Core Ultra 7 265F. It's 2167% faster than the FX-6300 on average across 100+ games, scoring 68/100 vs 3/100 in our gaming rating.

speedHow much faster is Core Ultra 7 265F than FX-6300?expand_more

2167% faster on average. The gap varies by game and resolution, check the per-game FPS comparison above.

aspect_ratioWhich is better for 1440p and 4K gaming, Core Ultra 7 265F or FX-6300?expand_more

The Core Ultra 7 265F is faster at both resolutions. Toggle the resolution selector above to see per-game FPS.

paidIs the Core Ultra 7 265F worth buying in 2026?expand_more

It scores 68/100 in our gaming rating, faster than most CPUs on the market. Good buy if the price is right.

differenceWhat is the difference between Core Ultra 7 265F and FX-6300?expand_more

Performance: Core Ultra 7 265F scores 68/100, FX-6300 scores 3/100. They also differ in core count, clock speeds, L3 cache, and power draw. Full breakdown in the specs section above.

compressWill the Core Ultra 7 265F or FX-6300 bottleneck my PC?expand_more

Depends on the rest of your build, especially your GPU. Swap the paired GPU in the FPS section above to see if it limits performance, or use our bottleneck calculator for a full analysis.

upgradeIs it worth upgrading to the Core Ultra 7 265F or FX-6300?expand_more

The Core Ultra 7 265F is the stronger pick at 68/100. Compare your current CPU against it to see the exact FPS gain across 100+ games.