The FX-6300 is the comparison's loser – it's a slower gaming CPU than the Core i7-2600S and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $10.00 more expensive!
Advantages of the FX-6300
The Core i7-2600S is better in every way
Advantages of the Core i7-2600S
- A much faster CPU for gaming
- Up to 17% cheaper – $48.02 vs $58.02
- A better value for money for gaming
- Consumes up to 32% less energy – 65 vs 95 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 8 vs 6 threads
FX-6300 vs Core i7-2600S for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
Core i7-2600S
Jan 9th, 2011
Average FPS
169
100%
Min 1% FPS
114
100%
Price, $
$48.02
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.28/FPS
100%
FX-6300 vs Core i7-2600S in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games, click on a game to change it
The FPS you'll get in saved games, click on a game to change it
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-6300 vs Core i7-2600S in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-6300 vs Core i7-2600S in core CPU performance specifications
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%
Core i7-2600S
Jan 9th, 2011
Cores
4-core
67%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
80%
Turbo Frequency
3.8 GHz
93%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
FX-6300 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Core i7-2600S |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 9th, 2011 |
| $132.00 | MSRP | Not Available |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
| Vishera | Codename | Sandy Bridge |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Performance | ||
6 | Cores | 4 |
| 6 | Threads | 8 |
3.5 GHz | Base Frequency | 2.8 GHz |
4.1 GHz | Turbo Frequency | 3.8 GHz |
| 8 MB | L3 Cache | 8 MB |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 @ 1866 MHz | RAM | DDR3 |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2000 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
