GX-210JA vs FX-6200
Aggregate performance score
FX-6200 outperforms GX-210JA by a whopping 1500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-6200 and GX-210JA processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1746 | 3305 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD |
| Power efficiency | 1.94 | 2.53 |
| Architecture codename | Zambezi (2011−2012) | Temash (2013) |
| Release date | 27 February 2012 (12 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
FX-6200 and GX-210JA 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 6 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.1 GHz | 1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 288 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 6144 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 8192 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.3 V - Max: 1.4125 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-6200 and GX-210JA 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM3+ | FT3 BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6200 and GX-210JA. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6200 and GX-210JA are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6200 and GX-210JA. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6200 and GX-210JA.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.56 | 0.16 |
| Recency | 27 February 2012 | 23 May 2013 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 2 |
| Threads | 6 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 6 Watt |
FX-6200 has a 1500% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.
GX-210JA, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1983.3% lower power consumption.
The FX-6200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GX-210JA in performance tests.
Note that FX-6200 is a desktop processor while GX-210JA is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6200 and GX-210JA, 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.
