In Atomfall, the FX-6300 is slightly slower than the Core i7-980X. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $149 cheaper!
FX-6300
- Is 2 years and 7 months newer – Oct 23, 2012 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 2 years and 7 months newer
- Up to 79% cheaper – $40.65 vs $189.95
- Up to 79% cheaper
- Up to 79% better value in Atomfall – $0.21 vs $0.98/FPS
- Up to 79% better value in Atomfall
- 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
Core i7-980X
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall – 192 vs 189 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-6300 vs Core i7-980X: Comparison of performance and price
FX-6300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
189 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
142 FPS
99%
Price, $
$40.65
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.21/FPS
100%
Core i7-980X
Mar 16th, 2010
Average FPS
192 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
144 FPS
100%
Price, $
$189.95
21%
Value, $/FPS
$0.98/FPS
21%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-6300 vs Core i7-980X in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-6300 vs Core i7-980X in core CPU performance specifications
FX-6300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
67%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Core i7-980X
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.333 GHz
95%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
88%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-6300 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i7-980X Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| $132.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA1366 |
95W | Power Consumption | 130W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
