FX-6200 vs Ryzen 3 1300X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 1300X outperforms FX-6200 by an impressive 71% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-6200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1317 | 1706 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.57 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.40 | 1.95 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Zambezi (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 27 February 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-6200 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 6 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 34 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 288 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 6144 KB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 8192 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | no data | Min: 1.3 V - Max: 1.4125 V |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-6200 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-6200. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-6200 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-6200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-6200.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | n/a |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.57 | 2.68 |
| Recency | 27 July 2017 | 27 February 2012 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 4 | 6 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 125 Watt |
Ryzen 3 1300X has a 70.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.
FX-6200, on the other hand, has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
The Ryzen 3 1300X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-6200 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 1300X and FX-6200, 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.
