Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F outperforms the cheaper FX-6350 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-6350 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-10900F is 2558 days newer than the cheaper FX-6350.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 12% better in Elden Ring than FX-6350 - 124 vs 111 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-6350 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6350 - 20 vs 6 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-6350
- Up to 59% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $100.0 vs $244.77
- Up to 54% better value when playing Elden Ring than Core i9-10900F - $0.9 vs $1.97 per FPS
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
124
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.97/FPS
45.685279187817265%
Price, $
$244.77
40%
FPS Winner
Buy for $244.77 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349103 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
FPS
111
89.51612903225806%
Value, $/FPS
$0.9/FPS
100%
Price, $
$100
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $100 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349102 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-10900F | vs | AMD FX-6350 |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Apr 29th, 2013 |
Core i9 | Collection | FX |
Comet Lake | Codename | Vishera |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
10 | Cores | 6 |
20 | Threads | 6 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
5.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 19.5x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |