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
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 higher Maximum Operating Temperature 72 °C vs 62.5 °C More than 15% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Marginally newer Feb, 2014 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1.33 MB/core Around 15% more l3 cache per core
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 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

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 4150 vs FX 6300

GeekBench (64-bit)

Core i3 4150
6,906
FX 6300
8,243

GeekBench

Core i3 4150
6,906
FX 6300
9,503

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
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
EM64T
F16C
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AVX 2.0
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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
Typical power consumption 43.88W 77.19W

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 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 62.5°C

gpu

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD graphics 4400 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
Intel Core i3 4150
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 8 comments.
Well they are definitely suceeding at that.
AMD is currently targetting entry- and mid-range markets and budget builders with their CPUs and APUs because Intel already has a stranglehold on the high-end market. They would in truth only be wasting time and money trying to muscle their way in the front door when they can crack open a window slowly, so to speak.
Modules are still 2 physical cores. Hyperthreading is entirely software based, so the i3 still only has 2 physical cores. The FX 6300 has 3 modules, but each module still has 2 physical cores.
Perhaps AMD doesn't care too much about the high end. Well not as much as Intel.
Yes. Intel only outperforms AMD at the high-end.
Modules, not cores
So basically at this price range AMD beats the shit out of Intel.
Listing Hyperthreading as a feature that the FX 6300 lacks is a little misleading, since it has 3 times as many cores and 2 more threads without it than the competing i3 part. Also, the AMD part is listed as not supporting EM64T, but not credited for AMD64. Both chips are fully 64-bit capable. :)
comments powered by Disqus