Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2640 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 E5-2640 v3 is 924 days newer than FX-6200.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3
- Performs up to 3% better in Dead Space than FX-6200 - 148 vs 144 FPS
- Consumes up to 28% less energy than AMD FX-6200 - 90 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6200 - 16 vs 6 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-6200
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $42.85 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 4786 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Desktop • Feb 27th, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-2640 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 |
8 | Cores | 3 |
16 | Threads | 6 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
3.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
90 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 19.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
No | Overclockable | Yes |