Key Differences
In short — Core i5-10400F outperforms the cheaper FX-8150 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8150 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-10400F is 3123 days newer than the cheaper FX-8150.
Advantages of AMD FX-8150
- Up to 43% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - $64.03 vs $112.53
- Up to 31% better value when playing Minecraft than Core i5-10400F - $0.11 vs $0.16 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 19% better in Minecraft than FX-8150 - 710 vs 597 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8150 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8150 - 12 vs 8 threads
Minecraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
FPS
597
84.08450704225352%
Value, $/FPS
$0.11/FPS
100%
Price, $
$64.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $64.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 361045 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
710
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.16/FPS
68.75%
Price, $
$112.53
56%
FPS Winner
Buy for $112.53 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 361046 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8150 | vs | Intel Core i5-10400F |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Zambezi | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
18.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |