CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4130 vs 6300


Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 1 more


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

No winner declared

Too close to call

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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 4130

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 4130

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly lower typical power consumption 43.88W vs 77.19W Around 45% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,978 vs 1,446 More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly higher Maximum Operating Temperature 72 °C vs 62.5 °C More than 15% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Better performance per watt 13.65 pt/W vs 7.41 pt/W Around 85% better performance per watt
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1.33 MB/core Around 15% more l3 cache per core
Newer Jul, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 8 months later
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year vs 83.22 $/year Around 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year vs 22.89 $/year Around 45% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 0.5 MB 12x 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
Significantly more l3 cache 8 MB vs 3 MB Around 2.8x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better performance per dollar 21.4 pt/$ vs 9.83 pt/$ Around 2.2x better performance per dollar
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 7,541 vs 1,786.7 Around 4.2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
More threads 6 vs 4 2 more threads
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.77 GHz vs 3.47 GHz More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark score 6,444 vs 4,801 Around 35% better PassMark score
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 8,207 vs 6,815 More than 20% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.8 GHz vs 3.4 GHz More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 4130 vs FX 6300

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i3 4130
FX 6300

GeekBench (64-bit)

Core i3 4130
FX 6300


Core i3 4130
FX 6300

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i3 4130
FX 6300

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i3 4130  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Hexa core
Is unlocked No Yes
Is hyperthreaded Yes No


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes


Label Intel® HD graphics 4400 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s


Core i3 4130  vs
FX 6300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 6
L2 cache 0.5 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 62.5°C


Overclocked clock speed 3.47 GHz 4.77 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.4 GHz 4.8 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 1,786.7 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.47 GHz 4.77 GHz

power consumption

TDP 54W 95W
Annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 13.65 pt/W 7.41 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.88W 77.19W
Intel Core i3 4130
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.
Then tell me why i3 is more expensive? You think Intel is crazy. Hopefully with us they know what they do and the dont make trash cpus like amd. 1. Intel chose to make better sinlge-core perfomance on their cpus because it's usually more important 2. You have no idea of technology cause you should know the more money i will spend on the i3 i will have them back within 6-12 months 3. Amd cpus have more cores and they sell a cpu with 6 cores for 95euros because they cant reach the perfomance that intel's cpus have Unfortunatelly amd fanboys will never understand but hey that's more good cpu for us and you say 2 core in 2015 are nothing LOL i just cant stop laughing. I can do any job on a pc with pentium 4. All cpus can. They will just take longer to do it. Go learn the basics and then come and argue.
I really hope that you realize that difference games are optimized different than other. Some games intel cpus can be better because the development can make it work better for thay certain game. If onr game were to use both at full power, the fx would destro. And it depends what gpu cpu combo you have. A gtx 770 may run better with a phenom processors than an i3 in certain games vs others. You are proving my point that it depends on how devs optimize their games, meaning it will be better or worse in certain games. And why are you showing articles to prove you point, I could as easily show you articles of fx 6300 destroying an intel i3. So you are proving nothing but showing me articles making you seem right when I could do the same thing.
These benchmarks that cpu boss use, mean nothing in real life the i3 isn't on the fx 6300 level IT'S TAKING ON THE FX 8320 on some games lol check the real benchmarks I posted below http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html http://www.techspot.com/review/903-alien-isolation-benchmarks/page5.html http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review/5 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/ http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/3/
Dude look at what you are saying. The fx destroyed the Intel cpu in every benchmark the only reason it gets good single core performance is because it only has two cores. Two cores in 2015 is nothing. The fx is better because it's more powerful, has more cores, more threads, way better at overclocking which will make it even stronger. I3 is weak. If you buy it you're stupid and wasting your money for garbage.
Sorry but in every benchmark the fx destroyed the intel cpu. Fact is the fx cpu eill run any game in the next few years while the intel dual core will not in 2015. The only reason it gets good single core performance is because it only has two cores. The fx is much more powerful and if you overclock it the fx will be much faster than it all ready is. There is no argument. If you choose the i3, you are stupid and wasting your money
yeah. then you'd see i3 is a better choice for most of tasks
and if one doesn't need heavy multitasking and rendering, still go for amd even though it consumes more power and has similar results in games and worse results in everyday tasks?
Well. I have been on both sides of the fence. I love both companies because they have amazing things to offer. Last year (2013) i switched from Intel to amd. I have got to say, since i am not only doing everyday tasks and gaming, i also render videos and stream. Here the FX-6300 was superior to the i3. I dont know how the pricings in your countries are, but in mine the fx is around 20euros cheaper than the i3. As far as gaming goes i didnt lose any fps. I also didnt gain any. So as far as gaming goes to me these processors are even. And to be fair right now the GPU-s are more important than cpus. The i3 has an upgrade path to the i5 or even i7, but in order to do that you need a solid chunk of money. I upgraded my fx 6300 to a 8350, and then i saw the big differnce. Here the most expensive i3 costs as much as fx 8350, and i have got to admit, that although intel is stronger than amd, amd also has some great bang for the buck deals. I think that every budget builder, should go with amd. Just the price to performance ratio is so good compared to intel. Yet if you have got some spare money to spend just go with an i5 4570k.
honestly instead of coming here go and look at some acutual benchmarks and reviews of less bias people on youtube
I have a AMD FX 6300 and he is very fast!
Yes, cpuboss is intel fan. Trying fool amd as much possible in everyway. I still go for AMD because of price and performance.
either it's i3 or FX 6300 or i5(but not lower than these) the results in games are gonna be pretty similar. i5 should be more future proof because it has very fast 4 cores, while FX 6300 has 6 slower cores. If you overclock both of these the results are gonna be pretty similar. FX 6300 may be a little better in SOME synthetic tests(those which only rely on multythreaded perfomance) while i5, like i3 will lead in everyday tasks and games, and will consume less power
That's odd, my friend and I have the exact same builds apart from the CPU, he has a i5 3570K and I have an FX6300 (We're both waiting for our local shop to get Hyper 212 stock so we can OC) but as it is we get pretty much the same with a <10FPS differnce in games, results vary from game to game in favour of both our CPU's, his kicks mine hands down in synthetic benchmarks.
I'll tell you that. Intel(the most developed and richest processor creating company) focuses on single core perfomance for a reason. It's usually more important, that's why they choose it instead of creating a lot of slower cores like AMD does
people who do everyday tasks and gaming should buy an i3. people who do heavy rendering, professional editing and things like that FX 6300. However I'd recommend an i5, cause you don't need to overclock it for high perfomance and it performes just as good as FX 6300 overclocked(in games even better)
Because people doing everyday tasks will buy an FX6300 or a 3.4 GHz i3?
and general perfomance is still measured by the single core perfomance. same goes for gaming. It's better to have 3-4 fast cores in gaming than 6-8 slower cores
every day tasks are too simple....and the difference in performance are just miliseconds, so that´s not important....the importsnt is the general performance of the processor....
only in multuthreaded categories. For most of people(doing everyday tasks) single core perfomance as well as power consumption are more important
See the result, AMD fanboy. No one won
Test results besides cpuboss says it's true
intel fan boys say: single core faster= the whole processor is better....but that´s not true....
intel fanboy detected....
comments powered by Disqus