CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4130 vs 6300

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

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

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

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

Value

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!
VS

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 1,979 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 14.18 pt/W vs 7.65 pt/W More than 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
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year vs 22.89 $/year Around 45% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year vs 83.22 $/year Around 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Marginally newer Jul, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 8 months later
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 PassMark (Overclocked) score 7,541 vs 1,786.7 Around 4.2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
More threads 6 vs 4 2 more threads
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.78 GHz vs 3.49 GHz More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark score 6,444 vs 4,810 Around 35% better PassMark score
Slightly better geekbench (64-bit) score 8,254 vs 6,792 More than 20% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.83 GHz vs 3.47 GHz Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 4130 vs FX 6300

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i3 4130
6,263
FX 6300
7,498

GeekBench (64-bit)

Core i3 4130
6,792
FX 6300
8,254

GeekBench

Core i3 4130
6,792
FX 6300
9,503

Passmark

Core i3 4130
4,810
FX 6300
6,444
In the other straight CPU performance tests in Cinebench it shows a very slight advantage, though the improvements in single-threaded performance aren't as pronounced as with the FX-8350.
FX 6300 | by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i3 4130
1,979
FX 6300
1,446

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

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

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
SSE3
FMA3
SSE2
FMA4
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AVX 2.0
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU GPU None
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
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

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

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.49 GHz 4.78 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.47 GHz 4.83 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 1,786.7 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.49 GHz 4.78 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 14.18 pt/W 7.65 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.88W 77.19W
Intel Core i3 4130
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 23 comments.
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....
processors have multiple cores for a reason, so, the comparison is between processors, not between cores....they have to compare the processors globally and not limited to isolated cores....
so the fx6300 won in almost all categories but the i3 is still better??????
it's a fan of single core perfomance and energy effiiciency
i3 isn't nearly twise as expsnsive as fx 6300
No one won. See the result..
but the intel processors are twice expensive. Amd processors are cheap and they accomplish the task....for gaming, a FX 6300 processor is more than enough....so, why pay more for something you don`t need?
"games are optimized to use several cores" like i5 and i7 which you can upgrade from if you have an i3. The fx processors are outdated and have a weak architecture, nobody should be buying a 2012 cpu in late 2014 and early 2015 builds. Plus the only games that are taking advantage of more than two cores are Skyrim, Battlefield, Crysis 3, and Arma 3 the list ends there. Web browsing, older games and even emulators all preform quicker with intel processors all while being efficient since the i3 only use 54 watts.
thats not true, because games are optimized tu use several cores....
AMD fanboys be like: WTF i3 is garbage FX 6300 is better because it has more cores!!!! More cores mean better!!
intel's cpus are hyperthreaded and they have better single-core perfomance and that's where amd loses the game that's why i3 is better
fx 6300 has crap 6 cores i3 is more powerful
The 6300 won most of the comparisons yet the i3 won? Nice.
AMD fanboy "but the fx 6300 has 6 cores no way the i3 is better" Video editing and rendering=FX 6300 more cores to handle the workload Gaming=i3 the single threaded power is what matters most in gaming not the amount of cores.
cpuboss intel fan.
Siete i3 sbagliato non è male per il gaming 1080p
i3 is crap fx 6300 has 6 cores
comments powered by Disqus