In Rust, the Xeon E5-1650 is slightly faster than the FX-6300. However, it's a much worse value for money, as it's $189 more expensive!
Xeon E5-1650
- Up to 1% faster in Rust – 211 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Rust
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 82% cheaper – $40.65 vs $229.95
- Up to 82% cheaper
- Up to 82% better value in Rust – $0.19 vs $1.08/FPS
- Up to 82% better value in Rust
- 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
Rust FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-1650 vs FX-6300: Comparison of performance and price
Xeon E5-1650
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
211 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
44 FPS
100%
Price, $
$229.95
17%
Value, $/FPS
$1.08/FPS
18%
FX-6300
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
209 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
42 FPS
95%
Price, $
$40.65
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.19/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-1650 vs FX-6300 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-1650 vs FX-6300 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-1650
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
91%
Turbo Frequency
3.8 GHz
93%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
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%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-1650 Mar 6th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-6300 Oct 23rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | $132.00 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | AM3+ |
| 130W | Power Consumption | 95W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1866 MHz (DDR3) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
