Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11400F outperforms the cheaper FX-4130 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-4130 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-11400F is 3123 days newer than the cheaper FX-4130.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11400F
- Performs up to 19% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than FX-4130 - 199 vs 167 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-4130 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-4130 - 12 vs 4 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-4130
- Up to 80% cheaper than Core i5-11400F - $22.92 vs $115.99
- Up to 76% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-11400F - $0.14 vs $0.58 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-11400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
199
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.58/FPS
24%
Price, $
$115.99
19%
FPS Winner
Buy for $115.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 72 minutes ago
Buy for $22.92 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 71 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Aug 27th, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-11400F | vs | AMD FX-4130 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Aug 27th, 2012 |
Core i5 | Collection | FX |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Zambezi |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 4 |
12 | Threads | 4 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
4.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
No | Overclockable | Yes |