In Atomfall, the FX-6300 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5-2643. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $60 cheaper!
FX-6300
- Is 7 months and 17 days newer – Oct 23, 2012 vs Mar 06, 2012
- Is 7 months and 17 days newer
- Up to 60% cheaper – $40.65 vs $100.70
- Up to 60% cheaper
- Up to 60% better value in Atomfall – $0.21 vs $0.52/FPS
- Up to 60% 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
Xeon E5-2643
- Up to 3% faster in Atomfall – 192 vs 187 FPS
- Up to 3% faster in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-6300 vs Xeon E5-2643: Comparison of performance and price
FX-6300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
187 FPS
97%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
97%
Price, $
$40.65
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.21/FPS
100%
Xeon E5-2643
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
192 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
144 FPS
100%
Price, $
$100.7
40%
Value, $/FPS
$0.52/FPS
40%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-6300 vs Xeon E5-2643 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-6300 vs Xeon E5-2643 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-6300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
80%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Xeon E5-2643
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
4-core
67%
L3 Cache
10 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
94%
Turbo Frequency
3.5 GHz
85%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-6300 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2643 Mar 6th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 6th, 2012 |
| $132.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA2011 |
95W | Power Consumption | 130W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
