CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4150 vs 6300 among desktop 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

Fire Strike

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?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

7.1

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD FX 6300 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 6300  based on its overclocking.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 4150

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 4150

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 43.88W vs 77.19W Around 45% lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 72 °C vs 62.5 °C More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year vs 22.89 $/year Around 45% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year vs 83.22 $/year Around 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Feb, 2014 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 1 years 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
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 4150 vs FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4150
6,509
FX 6300
7,871

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4150
3,056
FX 6300
2,053

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4150
3,865,000 MB/s
FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4150
6,508
FX 6300
7,447

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4150
7,012
FX 6300
8,232

GeekBench

Core i3 4150
7,012
FX 6300
9,503

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i3 4150
4,904
FX 6300
6,444

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i3 4150
2,020
FX 6300
1,446

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 4150  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Hexa core
Socket type
LGA 1150
AM3+
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

Core i3 4150  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 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 35 20
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 62.5°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD graphics 4400 N/A

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 13.38 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.88W 77.19W
Intel Core i3 4150
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
Cpuboss is crazy they always favor intel and nvidia ! FX6300 is ganna kick i3 A$$ ! I would rather go for FX6300 !
I thought I misunderstood you because no one in their right mind would focus on such insiginifcant thing, I was wrong about you then. That's the developers problem and a game bug you idiot, not a problem with the dual core. So you're blaming dual cores for not being able to launch a single game for one month and you call me a brainless child? that's pathetic. Again, laptop gaming is very popular nowdays, and it would be VERY stupid if developers didn't allow gamers to play on Mobile i5-s and i7-s with 2 cores. I have a dual core i7, which was the top of it's line in Sandy Bridge, even used in Razer blade gaming laptop. Now tell me how stupid such developers are, and how stupid you are for saying that dual cores with hyperthreading are bad simply because of 1 GAME THAT DIDN'T WORK FOR 1 MONTH
i said on release date you fucking brainless child who can't read, you needed to wait one month for it run, and a patch to come out on it. this video benchmarked was made a month after the game release and an unofficial patch came and allowed dual core users to play. people shouldn't be forced wait to play the most anticipated games of the year
Far Cry 4 runs just fine on a dual core with 4 threads(just like mobile i5-s and dual mobile i7-s) you dumb sheep who believes the stupid marketing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUS17P1_Xxc
far cry 4 on release date you dumb sheep
Are you fricken kidding me? show me what exactly i3 doesn't start up! It wortks ANYWHERE
and the i3 doesn't start up because of dual core limitation, seriously get amd or atleast locked i5 for a starting point
"they wouldn't have included idle power consumption tests if it was irrelavent" Of course many sites do so. Your excuse is still irrelevant. If you really wanna make claims about idle power consumption of the processors they have to prove the power consumption of the mainboards first. Otherwise your assumptions are pointless. "it's not because you showed me. I'\ve been measuring the power consumption with throttlestop program" I don't know what you are talking about. A program like ThrottleStop won't help you to get the idle power consumption of the processor. You clearly don't know what you are doing. Otherwise show me exactly how you get 5W with your "measurements". "effiency depends on voltage" Efficiency primarily depends on the architecture. Voltage is just another factor that depends on the manufacturing process and the frequency. Voltage of mobile processors are often lower because they have lower frequency. That's why we can ignore it for the moment. And that's why you are still wrong. Btw, i3-2120 and i7-2640M don't run at the same frequency. Base frequency of the i3 is 3.3 GHz, base frequency of the i7 is 2.8 GHz. CPU-Z also isn't a reliable tool for voltages and TDP. So, don't interpret too much into it. "By your logic mobile and desktop processors shoudl be completely equal in frequency-voltage and yet it's not like that" I didn't say that. But the differences are small and irrelevant for the topic. The paper from Intel is definitely not about mobile SKUs only. It's about the architecture, no matter if desktop, mobile or server. Please accept it and stop your hunt for poor excuses. It's annoying. "and yet the reviewers use the same videocard on all tests, showing the difference between the processors themselves, not videocards." Still irrelevant. As said before, most people have a different setup and that's why performance and power consumption can be different. Even if you compare the same processors as in the review. "so you're saying in normal idle ALL cores are completely inactuve amd NOTHING happenes in the system?" You are still searching for poor excuses. No one said that all cores must be inactive. Obviously you haven't any clue about anything. Let me teach you a little basic software lesson. Under Windows there exists a message queue for every GUI process. When the OS detects input from the user, for example when a key is pressed, it resumes the associated thread and processes the message. Without input (or other messages) the thread can enter an effective idle state via WaitMessage. Which helps the OS to deactivate everything that's not needed. You may think that nothing happens during user input. But are are wrong, young padawan. There are a lot of things that happen under the hood. Things that prevent the processor (or system) to activate several power saving features. Which might not be the case for threads of the OS that run in the background. So, read again what I said. Idle is not measured during user input. Period. "Yes I didn't know which artitechture FX 7500 is using. but it doesn't change the fact that you knew about it's existence" Corrected it for you. As said before, I know all product names from AMD and what's behind it. It's just the case that mobile FX have nothing to do with the topic because they are based on completely different designs than desktop FX. It's the same processors as the A8/A10 I mentioned before. That's why I didn't see any necessity to mention them explicitly. Obviously you are ignoring those facts too. "gosh do you even read my messages? I said "ALMOST" all, not all." And where's the punchline? It's wrong either way. I also didn't claim that you said "all" without "almost". I wonder if you read what I said. As said before, experienced gamers that compare processors are only a small part of the whole market. Casual gamers might be a bigger part. But still far away from "almost all". And they don't compare processors or need something like an FX-6300. They are fine with an X4 860K, G3258 or similar.
"Irrelevant. Trying is not enough." they wouldn't have included idle power consumption tests if it was irrelavent "No. It's about the architecture. It doesn't matter if desktop or mobile. The architecture is the same for both. Mobile SKUs, especially ULV models, can have much lower idle power consumption than 5W." "No, you don't know because you can't measure it. You only know about Sandy Bridge in general because I showed you an official paper from Intel." it's not because you showed me. I'\ve been measuring the power consumption with throttlestop program(allowes changing frequency along with voltage with it and has some other options) of my processor for a year now, and it's around 5 watts on idle, oh, now you're gonna say it's a coincidence because power consumption can't be measured. "No. They have the same efficiency because it's the same architecture" effiency depends on voltage, and mobile processors have lower voltage to decrease heat production and energy consumption so no, the effieicnecy for desktop and mobile parts are different in favor of the latter http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/1650/intel-2120.jpg My i7 2640m right now runs at 0.91 voltage with the same frequency as the i3 in this example. By your logic mobile and desktop processors shoudl be completely equal in frequency-voltage and yet it's not like that "Wow, the power consumption of one game. This of course changes ... absolutely nothing about the synthetic nature of typical reviews. Especially because ~99% of the people out there have a different system and a different graphics card." and yet the reviewers use the same videocard on all tests, showing the difference between the processors themselves, not videocards. your point makes no sence "No. But I'm sure they also didn't test idle with some office apps or dozens of browser tabs running." since when we started talking about a dozen tabs opened in the browser? did you even read my last message? I was talking specificly about text reading\editing, that browsing doesn't fit this scenario because each internet page may have a different load on processor, but for some reason you mention it here? "No, it can't. Idle can definitely only be measured without user input." so you're saying in normal idle ALL cores are completely inactuve amd NOTHING happenes in the system? because somethign still does happen, and text reading\editing gives approximetely the same load on the system. Or there is a major difference between some background Windows process and a user typing something on keyboard in a text file(not internet document)? enlighten me "No. You said it because you have absolutely no clue." if I had absolutely no clue I wouldn't have said ANYTHING about it. Yes I didn't know which artitechture FX 7500 is using. but it doesn't change the fact that you didn't know about it's existance. Don't pretend to be a smart guy by attacking me "No, they don't. People buy processors for many things, not just games" gosh do you even read my messages? I said "ALMOST" all, not all. Yes they aren't completely equivalent but in the main specs for most of people they are. Even in some multuithreaded tests i3 comes close to FX 6300, and the difference is even smaller in games
"For the test they try picking equal motherboards and power supplies" Irrelevant. Trying is not enough. "From what I';ve saw from the irticle(page 11) you sent, those are mobile processors described there." No. It's about the architecture. It doesn't matter if desktop or mobile. The architecture is the same for both. Mobile SKUs, especially ULV models, can have much lower idle power consumption than 5W. "As an owner of a mobile Sandy bridge processor I know it consumes 5 watts on idle" No, you don't know because you can't measure it. You only know about Sandy Bridge in general because I showed you an official paper from Intel. "but we're discussing the desktop processors here which are far less efficient and have higher voltage" No. They have the same efficiency because it's the same architecture. And they don't have higher voltages because it's the same silicon and idle frequency is the same as well. "if you actually payed attention to the link I sent you about power consumption you'd see they were testing real life apps too, including games and even power consumption during games." Wow, the power consumption of one game. This of course changes ... absolutely nothing about the synthetic nature of typical reviews. Especially because ~99% of the people out there have a different system and a different graphics card. "do you actually think they tested idle by disabling EVERYTHING in the system that could give even a tiny load on a core?" No. But I'm sure they also didn't test idle with some office apps or dozens of browser tabs running. "but text editing is just nothing nowdays and can be considered idle" No, it can't. Idle can definitely only be measured without user input. "this is why I said "they may not be as energy wasteful as desktop FX"" No. You said it because you have absolutely no clue. Already the word "wasteful" is used completely wrong in the context of APU idle power consumption. "but you said there are NO FX for mobile" Everyone with a clue knows that Bulldozer FX means Zambezi/Vishera. It's about the design (Orochi), not reusing names. Maybe you understand this better, there is no mobile Orochi. Don't blame me for your cluelessness. "yet almost all people choose processors considering their price\perfomance in games ratio" No, they don't. People buy processors for many things, not just games. Experienced gamers are only a small part of the whole market. But that still doesn't change anything about the comparability of i3 and FX. Which is just nonsense from a technical point of view. And that was our starting point. Remember what you claimed about idle power consumption? We didn't talk about price or performance in games.
For the test they try picking equal motherboards and power supplies, otherwise there would be no point testing power consumption if it, this is why the difference simply can't be that huge. From what I';ve saw from the irticle(page 11) you sent, those are mobile processors described there. As an owner of a mobile Sandy bridge processor I know it consumes 5 watts on idle, but we're discussing the desktop processors here which are far less efficient and have higher voltage. "Even fewer people use the exact same apps. And no one actually uses benchmarks like PCMark or Cinebench in real life" if you actually payed attention to the link I sent you about power consumption you'd see they were testing real life apps too, including games and even power consumption during games. "Load is load and no idle. There's actually nothing like 1% or so load. There can only be something like 1 instruction to process (load) and 99 NOPs that allows the core to halt (idle). Office apps can definitely cause some meaningful load." do you actually think they tested idle by disabling EVERYTHING in the system that could give even a tiny load on a core? of course they tested real life idle, and no, text editing\reading loads cores practicly the same as when you don't do anything in the system. When you're browsing - that's a different story, because some sites may give more or less load, but text editing is just nothing nowdays and can be considered idle "Oh, c'mon. Get your head out of your ar... This is a completely different and newer processor design. It's an APU (Kaveri) and based on the Steamroller core. It has absolutely nothing to do with the FX we talk about (Vishera) which is based on the older Piledriver core and a CPU only design (Orochi)." this is why I said "they may not be as energy wasteful as desktop FX" meaning they can be different, but you said there are NO FX for mobile, not that mobile FX are different in an original message "No. That's still utter nonsense from a technical point of view." yet almost all people choose processors considering their price\perfomance in games ratio, and i3 and FX 6300 are very close to that, not to mention that THIS TOPIC right now is between these 2.
"I do, except they use real life motherboards, videocards etc which people use in real life at their homes." But only few people use the exact same hardware configuration. Even fewer people use the exact same apps. And no one actually uses benchmarks like PCMark or Cinebench in real life. Except some geeks for ePenis comparisons. And there are other flaws in typical reviews. For example, almost no one benches multitasking. That's at least as important for modern systems as benchmarking a single app. "They also said that the power consumption of the mainboards are practicly the same and should not affect the final results strongly." Then they are lying or just plain stupid. Of course the power consumption of the mainboard can make a very big difference. Significant differences under idle are always a good indicator. Look here: http://www.hotchips.org/wp-content/uploads/hc_archives/hc23/HC23.19.9-Desktop-CPUs/HC23.19.921.SandyBridge_Power_10-Rotem-Intel.pdf On page 19 you can see that already Sandy Bridge's idle power consumption was <=5W (processor package). Even you have to accept there's no way Haswell's idle power consumption is >=10W lower than that. It must be due to other components, especially the mainboard. "so 0-1 % of load is not idle nowdays?" Load is load and no idle. There's actually nothing like 1% or so load. There can only be something like 1 instruction to process (load) and 99 NOPs that allows the core to halt (idle). Office apps can definitely cause some meaningful load. "right..." Oh, c'mon. Get your head out of your ar... This is a completely different and newer processor design. It's an APU (Kaveri) and based on the Steamroller core. It has absolutely nothing to do with the FX we talk about (Vishera) which is based on the older Piledriver core and a CPU only design (Orochi). "there is a lot of mobile FX series chips actually, they may be not as energy wasteful as desktop versions, but the fact that you didn't know about their existance shows me you aren't as much of an expert as you claim to be" I know of these processors very well. But unlike you I also know that these processors have nothing to do with desktop FX. It's actually just renamed A8/A10. It shows once again that you are completely clueless. "And i3 is best compared to FX 6300." No. That's still utter nonsense from a technical point of view. i3 is best compared to A8/A10. Both have two physical CPU cores, both can handle two threads per core, both have an iGPU, both can be used on a modern mainstream platform. Nothing applies to an FX-6300. Just because the FX-6300 has a similar price and may perform similar in games doesn't make it comparable per se. Especially because it's an old and outdated design from 2011 which has been slightly updated in 2012. The current x86 CPU design from AMD is based on the completely new Zen architecture. But it's still in development and planned to launch next year.
"And they are very synthetic. Do you know what that means? I doubt it." I do, except they use real life motherboards, videocards etc which people use in real life at their homes. "You just sound like a typical marketing victim" well, the exact same site I sent you a link to made the same review, but for an i5. and guess what? 4-th gen i5's power consumption was only a few watts less than FX series processors, which means that the power consumption difference can only be applied to an i3 and that site is not Intel biased. They also said that the power consumption of the mainboards are practicly the same and should not affect the final results strongly. "You already made a fool of yourself by claiming an FX consumes 25W more than an i3/5/7 under idle." and I corrected myself later which you didn't pay attention to at all. Open the original page and see my message. "Working with documents is low load. It still hasn't anything to do with idle." so 0-1 % of load is not idle nowdays? ok. "You also won't find an FX in notebooks" right... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lenovo-15-6-inch-Notebook-Graphics-Bluetooth/dp/B00O8SDRKK there is a lot of mobile FX series chips actually, they may be not as energy wasteful as desktop versions, but the fact that you didn't know about their existance shows me you aren't as much of an expert as you claim to be And i3 is best compared to FX 6300. Pretty much everyone says that. Simply because these processors are too much different. A system with i3 should have external graphics onboard, because Intel HD graphics is way too slow for gaming, while AMD A series is capable of gaming by itself. And secondly, i3 and FX 6300 are very similar in price and gaming perfomance, this is why they are compared in different reviews all the time and people choose between these 2, not between i3 and AMD apu-s
You are still clueless and don't understand what was said. I never said reviews are lies. I said reviews "reflect only a very specific scenario". And they are very synthetic. Do you know what that means? I doubt it. You just sound like a typical marketing victim. Wake up, little boy. Reviews are mostly sponsored by the big companies. If you take everything at face value then you are an idiot. But that wouldn't change much, I guess. You already made a fool of yourself by claiming an FX consumes 25W more than an i3/5/7 under idle. Big LOL. I strongly suggest to get your facts right next time. Neutral and in depth reviews are unfortunately rare to find. Working with documents is low load. It still hasn't anything to do with idle. Do you know the difference between idle, partial load and full load? You also won't find an FX in notebooks. Do you know idle power consumption of current mobile A8/A10? Where the discussion started is actually not important. What I said is still true. i3 is best compared to A8/10. Especially when you talk about mobile platforms. FX4 is outdated.
Oh sure, all reviews are a lie, and such a big difference is only caused by more efficient motherboards, and all those review sites are written by idiots. "Energy saving architecture"? Really? There is no such thing. Architecture (or microarchitecure) is one thing, power saving mechanisms or features is another thing." ok, more energy efficient archtecture with energy saving technologies. don't be such a douchbag, you know what I meant "Except you are so naive to believe that processors can generate energy under idle." except you're so nayive to believe that I believe they do "No one uses its notebook to idle for 12 hours" lol, but working with documents can be considered idle nowdays, when processor load is 0-1%, and that's what Macbook air is for - work. You should also take into considereration SSD-s which don't spin during work unlike HDD-s and MAC OS which also reduces load to minimum "And no, we don't compare i3 to FX. That's utter nonsense. i3 is best compared to A10/A8." right... now look where this discussion is from... cpuboss - i3 4150 VS FX 6300. doesn't ring a bell?
From what I heard from you I'm sure I know much more about Haswell and processor architectures in general than you. "Energy saving architecture"? Really? There is no such thing. Architecture (or microarchitecure) is one thing, power saving mechanisms or features is another thing. Sry, you are a noob that pretends to know something. But you actually don't know anything. All your knowledge seems to be based on typical flawed reviews. Reviews never tell the whole story. They reflect only a very specific scenario. And without further knowledge it's easy to misinterpret the results. You proved that very well. Some reviewers even propagate stuff that's untrue. That makes it even more difficult for uninformed readers. It doesn't matter if i3, i5 or i7. They all are based on the same core within the same generation. So, they all have the same microarchitecture and the same power saving features. As I told you before, significant differences under idle are caused by the platform (especially the motherboard), not the processor. Basically all modern x86 processors have an idle power consumption of <5W. Which means there cannot be a difference of 15W or even more. Except you are so naive to believe that processors can generate energy under idle. I wonder how long it will take you to accept this. It also doesn't matter what Haswell does on mobile platforms. We talked about desktop. "Worked 8 hours" or "raised to 12" also hasn't anything to do with idle. No one uses its notebook to idle for 12 hours. Btw, Carrizo not only increased battery life by 50% compared to its predecessor. It doubled battery life, matching and even slightly outdoing Broadwell. ;) And no, we don't compare i3 to FX. That's utter nonsense. i3 is best compared to A10/A8.
I've seen A LOT of reviews and comparissons and they all show significant difference between processors. idk if you read my comment, but before you replied to it I said that it's 15 watts, not 25. You probably don't know much about haswell energy saving architecture. Macbook air with Ivy bridge worked 8 hours off battery, with Haswel processor is raised to 12, and pretty much everyone agrees it's mainly because of the processor reduced power consumption. Similar thing happened to desktops. While they may be not as efficient as ULV processors in ultrabooks, their power consumption is still reduced to minimum on idle. Maybe it';s i7 that consumes a lot on idle,and I know that new AMD processors consume less power, but we're comparing i3 to an FX series processor right now, and in terms of power consumption the first one wins hands down.
You are still completely clueless. Did you even read what I said? Or can't you understand? This is the power consumption of the whole platform and not the processor itself. The differences are mainly due to different boards. As I said before, idle power consumption is within ~5W for all shown CPUs. It's actually negligible for desktops. A good board is more important for idle than 1-2W between different CPUs. That's why you should never take any review too serious. They usually show results only for certain boards, ignoring dozens of boards existing on the market. Even a Haswell platform can consume a lot of power under idle if you use a power hungry board (e.g. LGA 2011): http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Haswell-E-Intel-Core-i7-5960X-8-core-Processor-Review/Power-Consumption-Perf-Doll Btw, 57 - 42 = 15, not 25. Even your math was wrong. But this is irrelevant anyway. FX is based on an old and outdated design (Bulldozer/Piledriver) on an old and outdated platform (AM3+). AMD's current CPU designs are Steamroller and Excavator which can be found in Kaveri and Carrizo. They don't consume more power than Haswell and Broadwell under idle. With Zen next year there will be also a new platform (AM4).
Of course it isn't nearly as fast as 4 physycal cores, but it's also often VERY useful for multythreaded applications and games, just a few examples see the difference between a Pentium and i3 on the same frequency for a game that requires at least 4 threads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbXZF7yUhgc here is a goog example too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N_LInOSpCI
Sorry my bad, not 25, 15 but still significant in a long term considering the massive difference on load too here is a detailed comparisson of power consumption between FX series processors and haswell processors. Not in English so you can use google translate for it. http://www.3dnews.ru/764587/page-2.html#Энергопотребление As you can see the difference is siginificant. especially on idle, unlike Ivy bridge processors which consumed about as much as AMD FX series processors
Hyper threading isn't that simple, and doesn't offer the same performance that 2 more physical cores would give. Hyper threading can even lower performance in some instances. It would mostly be able to just trick a game with a 4 core requirement into making it run, but the CPU performance would still be awful if the game required 4 cores.
Hyper threading isn't that simple, and doesn't offer the same performance that 2 more physical cores would give. Hyper threading can even lower performance in some instances. It would mostly be able to just trick a game with a 4 core requirement into making it run, but the CPU performance would still be awful if the game required 4 cores.
the hyperthreading makes the i3 a quad core, nothing really special
Wrong. The FX processor itself consumes ~5W under idle. How can that be 25W more than Haswell? Does Haswell actually generate electricity? LOL. That's not possible. Nowadays differences of 25W can only be caused by different mainboards. Also don't forget the efficiency of the power supply and voltage regulators. Obviously you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. It's the platform what you are talking about, not the processors. A Haswell platform can also consume a lot under idle if it's LGA 2011. Just like FX on AM3+. Bulldozer on FM2+ doesn't consume more than Haswell on LGA 1150.
AMD's so popular FX series actually consumes about 25 more watts on idle than Intel Haswells. Go look it up. and undervolting it a little doesn't help reducing power consumption on idle, only on almostf ull load
comments powered by Disqus