CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 2356 vs 6200 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

FX 6200
n.d.
FX 8350
n.d.
Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 6200
n.d.
FX 8350
8.5
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

5.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD FX 6200 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 6200  based on its performance and single-core performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of AMD FX 6200

AMD FX 6200

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Opteron 2356

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 2356

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 60.94W vs 101.56W 40% lower typical power consumption
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Much lower annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year vs 30.11 $/year 40% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year vs 109.5 $/year 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 6200

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6200

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 2 MB 3x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Much higher clock speed 3.8 GHz vs 2.3 GHz More than 65% higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 2 MB 4x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.71 GHz vs 2.43 GHz Around 95% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per watt 7.46 pt/W vs 1.36 pt/W Around 5.5x better performance per watt
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,305 vs 778 Around 70% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 1.33 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core Around 2.8x more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 6,115 vs 2,814 Around 2.2x better PassMark score
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Newer Feb, 2012 vs Apr, 2008 Release date over 3 years later
More threads 6 vs 4 2 more threads
Higher Maximum operating temperature 61.1 °C vs 55 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.8 GHz vs 2.3 GHz More than 65% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Opteron 2356 vs FX 6200

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 2356
7,681
FX 6200
7,985

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 2356
1,090
FX 6200
1,980

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Opteron 2356
86.9 MB/s
FX 6200
2,300,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Opteron 2356
2,814
FX 6200
6,115

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 6200
1,305

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Opteron 2356  vs
FX 6200 
Clock speed 2.3 GHz 3.8 GHz
Cores Quad core Hexa core
Socket type
F
AM3+
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 75W 125W
Annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 1.36 pt/W 7.46 pt/W
Typical power consumption 60.94W 101.56W

details

Opteron 2356  vs
FX 6200 
Threads 4 6
L2 cache 2 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 2 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 11 20
Voltage range 1 - UnknownV 0.75 - 1.4V
Operating temperature 0 - 55°C Unknown - 61.1°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.43 GHz 4.71 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.3 GHz 3.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.43 GHz 4.71 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
AMD Opteron 2356
Report a correction
AMD FX 6200
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus