Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i3-3240 outperforms the more expensive FX-8300 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i3-3240 is 50 days older than the more expensive FX-8300.
Advantages of AMD FX-8300
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-3240 - 8 vs 4 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i3-3240
- Performs up to 1% better in Battlefield 2042 than FX-8300 - 146 vs 144 FPS
- Up to 15% cheaper than FX-8300 - $41.0 vs $47.98
- Up to 15% better value when playing Battlefield 2042 than FX-8300 - $0.28 vs $0.33 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD FX-8300 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8300 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield 2042
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
144
98.63013698630137%
Value, $/FPS
$0.33/FPS
84.84848484848484%
Price, $
$47.98
85%
Buy for $47.98 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 354174 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
FPS
146
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.28/FPS
100%
Price, $
$41
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $41 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 354174 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8300 | vs | Intel Core i3-3240 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 3rd, 2012 |
FX | Collection | Core i3 |
Vishera | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 4 |
3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 55 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
16.5x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2500 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |