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 4360

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 4360

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
Higher clock speed 3.7 GHz vs 3.5 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
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 4360 vs FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4360
FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4360
FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4360
4,540,000 MB/s
FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4360
FX 6300


Core i3 4360
FX 6300

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i3 4360
FX 6300

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i3 4360
FX 6300

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i3 4360
FX 6300

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i3 4360  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 3.7 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Hexa core
Socket type
LGA 1150
Is unlocked No Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
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
Performance per watt 15.46 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.88W 77.19W


Core i3 4360  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 4 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 37 20
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 62.5°C

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 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
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i3 4360
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 13 comments.
actually even without overclocking FX 6300 consumes about 70 more watts on load than i3, concidering that overclocking requires both more powerful and safer power supply than i3(for i3 and mid ranged videocard a very basic power supply would do) it would be more expensive for it. Same goes for cooler, while for i3 a box, quiet cooler would do just fine with it's low temperatures. Also, i3-s power consumption on idle is about 25 watts lower, not to mention on load (translate the page to english if you don't understand what it means, but basicly those tests are on idle, processor load and gaming in watts)Энергопотребление 120-130 & you say? it's funny because i3 is cheaper than that and it's not the slowest model. So as you can see FX 6300 is either slower, or more expensive than i3. but even fully overclocked, it's not that much faster in gaming.
Yeah, an extra 20-30W is really gonna need that beefier power supply (sarcasm). Also, overclocking doesn't require a more expensive motherboard, just take some time and don't be an idiot when you're buying one. You'll end up spending $40 extra, at a maximum, on that cooling if you actually know what to look for, which puts that FX-6300 plus extra expenses at $120-$130, which is the same price as cheaper i3s -_-
overclocking would require a more expensive motherboard, cooler, power supply and it would consume even more electricity, which makes it way out of i3 price range. and yes, i3 is generally better at gaming and everyday tasks. For more heavy multitasking and rendering one should go for i5 or FX 6300. However, for basic multitasking i3 is pretty good. On my second gen i3 I watch full HD movie on one screen, playing a game on the other, while having browser, skype and utorrent open. (depending on the game though) it works just fine
Gaming is really the only place where an i3 can get within 15% of an i5 in performance.
Just looked at the scores for those two processors in various tasks using the links on this site, and the FX-6300 looked to be averaging about 15-20% faster in multithreaded tasks. That's without factoring in the 500-800MHz OC you can get with practically no effort, btw.
well, all perfomance tests say otherwise. slowest i5 4-th gen is a little faster than FX 6300, not to mention higher models. So yes, top i3-s are just a little slower in multythreaded tasks than FX 6300
Unless you're telling me that an i3 comes within 10% of an i5 (they don't, not even a 4370 vs a 44330), then no, AMD's 6 core chips are not just "slightly faster" than an i3 in multithreading.
I was talking about i3 though, which pretty much everyone underestimates
Actually their 6 core chips are only a little slower than i5s when it comes to multithreading. Single thread performance is still terrible though.
You don't come here for price comparison do you? Surely one would compare prices first, find chips within their budget and then look at benchmarks and compare the choices.
it performs A LITTLE better at multithreaded programs and A LOT worse in single-threaded applications. Also consumes a lot more power. This is not biased at all. When 2 cores perform almost as fast as 6 that says something...
This is so biased. The FX is cheaper, performs BETTER, overclocks BETTER, and has less performance per dollar? all your sites are so biased.
That price is for the 4130, not the 4360, the 4360 is $180. Looks like your charts were off, again.
comments powered by Disqus