Winner
Intel Core i5 2400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 2400 based on its .
See full details| | Intel Core i5 2400 vs AMD FX 6300 |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Much higher Maximum Operating Temperature 72.6 °C |
| | Significantly better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score 1.36 | | Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,719 |
| | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | | Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz |
| | Is unlocked Yes | | Higher clock speed 3.5 GHz |
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)It's not far off in terms of gaming, with our low-end Batman: AC scores showing 155fps for the FX-6300 versus 164FPS for the stock-clocked i5-3570K.
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Core i5 2400 7.3 FX 6300 7.2 | |
| Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Core i5 2400 8.7 FX 6300 7.9 | |
| Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Core i5 2400 6.9 FX 6300 9.6 | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Core i5 2400 6.3 FX 6300 8.0 | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
| Core i5 2400 7.8 FX 6300 7.6 | |
Intel Core i5 2400CPUBoss Winner | | |
| |||||||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much higher Maximum Operating Temperature | 72.6 °C | vs | 62.5 °C | More than 15% higher Maximum Operating Temperature | |||
| Significantly better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score | 1.36 | vs | 1.07 | More than 25% better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,719 | vs | 1,446 | Around 20% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | vs | 1.33 MB/core | Around 15% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Slightly better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 19,179 | vs | 16,213 | Around 20% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 1 MB | 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 4.1 GHz | vs | 3.4 GHz | More than 20% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| Higher clock speed | 3.5 GHz | vs | 3.1 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
| More l3 cache | 8 MB | vs | 6 MB | Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| More cores | 6 | vs | 4 | 2 more 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 | |||
| Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 7,541 | vs | 3,244.5 | More than 2.2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 6.54 pt/$ | vs | 2.91 pt/$ | Around 2.2x better performance per dollar | |||
| More threads | 6 | vs | 4 | 2 more threads | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.78 GHz | vs | 3.57 GHz | Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 77.19W | vs | 93.6W | Around 20% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Marginally newer | Oct, 2012 | vs | Jan, 2011 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.83 GHz | vs | 3.8 GHz | More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | vs | 100.92 $/year | Around 20% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | vs | 27.75 $/year | Around 20% lower annual home energy cost | |||
FX 6300 | by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)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.
summary | Core i5 2400 | vs | FX 6300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 4.1 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Hexa core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 1155 | |||
| AM3+ | |||
| Is unlocked | No | Yes | |
| Is hyperthreaded | No | 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 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 2000 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 2 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 850 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,100 MHz | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1866 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3-1066 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 21,333.32 MB/s | 29,866.66 MB/s | |
details | Core i5 2400 | vs | FX 6300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 6 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 6 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 1.33 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 72.6°C | Unknown - 62.5°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 63 | 82 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.57 GHz | 4.78 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.8 GHz | 4.83 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 3,244.5 | 7,541 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.57 GHz | 4.78 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 95W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 27.75 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 100.92 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 6.57 pt/W | 7.57 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 93.6W | 77.19W | |
| Intel Core i5 2400 | AMD FX 6300 |
| VS | |
| $230 | $110 | |
| 3570K vs 6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $110 | |
| 8320 vs 6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $120 | $110 | |
| 4150 vs 6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $120 | $110 | |
| 4130 vs 6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $110 | |
| 8350 vs 6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $125 | $110 | |
| 3220 vs 6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $130 | $110 | |
| 6350 vs 6300 | ||
| VS | |
| $253 | $325 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $161 | $225 | |
| N3530 vs 3110M | ||
| VS | |
| $340 | $325 | |
| 4790K vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| N2830 vs 3217U | ||
| VS | |
| $97 | $281 | |
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 4700MQ vs 5750M | ||
| VS | |
| 800 vs 5 Octa | ||