Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2609 v3 outperforms FX-6200 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2609 v3 is 924 days newer than FX-6200.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3
- Performs up to 1% better in Red Dead Redemption 2 than FX-6200 - 150 vs 148 FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than AMD FX-6200 - 85 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Red Dead Redemption 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Xeon E5-2609 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
FX-6200
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 | vs | AMD FX-6200 |
|---|---|---|
Sep 8th, 2014 | Release Date | Feb 27th, 2012 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | FX |
| Haswell-E/EP, Sandy Bridge-EP/EX | Codename | Zambezi |
| Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 3 |
| 6 | Threads | 6 |
| 1.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
85 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
| 19.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
