AMD FX-6300 vs Intel Core i5-4690K

AMD FX-6300
AMD Socket AM3+DESKTOP
3500 MHz / Cores: 6 / Oct 2012
AMD FX-6300
Intel Core i5-4690K
Intel Socket 1150DESKTOP
3500 MHz / Cores: 4 / Jun 2014
Intel Core i5-4690K

Summary

Synthetic performance index

  • AMD FX-6300
    100%
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    158%

Relative performance

Single thread performance index

  • AMD FX-6300
    100%
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    177%

Relative performance

Multi thread performance index

  • AMD FX-6300
    100%
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    144%

Relative performance

Reasons to consider AMD FX-6300

None

Reasons to consider Intel Core i5-4690K

Much higher single threaded performance (around 77% higher), makes a noticeable performance difference in gaming and the majority of applications.
Much higher multi threaded performance (around 44% higher). This allows for higher performance in professional applications like encoding or heavy multitasking.
This is a newer product, it might have better application compatibility/performance (check features chart below).
Has an integrated GPU, which allows to run the system without a dedicated graphics card, unlike the AMD FX-6300.
Around 58% higher average synthetic performance.

Intel Core i5-4690K

Gaming

HWBench recommends Intel Core i5-4690K

Based on game and synthetic benchmarks, and theoretical specifications.

Intel Core i5-4690K

Productivity

HWBench recommends Intel Core i5-4690K

Based on productivity benchmarks, overall multithreaded performance and theoretical specifications.


Specifications

Features

AMD FX-6300Intel Core i5-4690K
MMX
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
SSSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
SSE4a
AMD64
AMD-V
AES
AVX
CLMUL
CVT16
EVP
FMA4
XOP
Turbo Core
HT3.1
AVX2
EIST
Intel 64
XD bit
VT-x
AES-NI
FMA3
F16C
BMI1
BMI2
Boost 2.0

Architecture

AMD FX-6300Intel Core i5-4690K
ArchitectureAMD PiledrivervsIntel_Haswell
MarketDesktopvsDesktop
Memory SupportDDR3vsDDR3
CodenameVisheravsHaswell
Release DateOct 2012vsJun 2014

Cores

AMD FX-6300Intel Core i5-4690K
Cores6vs4
Threads6vs4
SMPs1vs1
Integrated GraphicsNovsIntel HD 4600

Cache

AMD FX-6300Intel Core i5-4690K
L1 Cache288 KBvs64 KB (per core)
L2 Cache6144 KBvs256 KB (per core)
L3 Cache8192 KB (shared)vs6144 KB (shared)

Physical

AMD FX-6300Intel Core i5-4690K
SocketAMD Socket AM3+vsIntel Socket 1150
Max Case Tempunknownvs72°C
PackageuPGAvsFC-LGA12C
Die Size315mm²vs177mm²
Process32 nmvs22 nm

Performance

AMD FX-6300Intel Core i5-4690K
Cpu Frequency3500 MHzvs3500 MHz
Turbo Clock4100 MHzvs3900 MHz
Base Clock200 MHzvs100 MHz
Voltage1.4 Vvsunknown
TDP95 Wvs88 W

Raw performance index

Raw single-thread performance estimation

  • AMD FX-6300
    2501 points
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    4368 points

Points - higher is better

Raw multi-thread performance estimation

  • AMD FX-6300
    10504 points
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    15680 points

Points - higher is better

Synthetic benchmarks

GeekBench 3 (32-bit Multi Core)

  • AMD FX-6300
    7392
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    11931

points - higher is better

GeekBench 3 (64-bit Single Core)

  • AMD FX-6300
    2269
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    4110

points - higher is better

GeekBench 3 (64-bit Multi Core)

  • AMD FX-6300
    8207
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    13301

points - higher is better

GeekBench 3 (32-bit Single Core)

  • AMD FX-6300
    1974
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    3722

points - higher is better

Rendering: POV-Ray 3.7

  • AMD FX-6300
    978
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    1432

points per second - higher is better

7-zip

  • AMD FX-6300
    15918
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    17256

MIPS - higher is better

3D Particle Movement (Single Threaded)

  • AMD FX-6300
    71.98
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    129.19

points - higher is better

3D Particle Movement (Multi Threaded)

  • AMD FX-6300
    267.49
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    412.89

points - higher is better

Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit

  • AMD FX-6300
    417
  • Intel Core i5-4690K
    568

points - higher is better

Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit

  • AMD FX-6300 (simulated)
    97.26
  • Intel Core i5-4690K (simulated)
    158.17

points - higher is better