Celeron D 340 vs FX-6200
Primary details
Comparing FX-6200 and Celeron D 340 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1642 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.45 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | Prescott (2001−2005) |
| Release date | 27 February 2012 (12 years ago) | September 2004 (19 years ago) |
| Current price | $159 | $169 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-6200 and Celeron D 340 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 6 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| L1 cache | 288 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 cache | 6144 KB | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 8192 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 109 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | 67 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 125 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.3 V - Max: 1.4125 V | no data |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.25V-1.4V |
Compatibility
Information on FX-6200 and Celeron D 340 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3+ | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 73 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6200 and Celeron D 340. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
FX-6200 and Celeron D 340 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6200 and Celeron D 340 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6200 and Celeron D 340. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6200 and Celeron D 340.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 6 | 1 |
| Threads | 6 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 73 Watt |
FX-6200 has 500% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron D 340, on the other hand, has 71.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between FX-6200 and Celeron D 340. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6200 and Celeron D 340, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
