
Core i5-2400
Popular choices:

FX-6120
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
Core i5-2400
2011Why buy it
- ✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅Costs $4 less on MSRP ($184 MSRP vs $188 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 2000, while FX-6120 needs a discrete GPU.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike FX-6120.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 8 MB).
FX-6120
2012Why buy it
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 6 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (3,853 vs 3,870).
- ❌2.2% HIGHER MSRP$188 MSRPvs$184 MSRP
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-2400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-2400.
Core i5-2400
2011FX-6120
2012Why buy it
- ✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅Costs $4 less on MSRP ($184 MSRP vs $188 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 2000, while FX-6120 needs a discrete GPU.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike FX-6120.
Why buy it
- ✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 6 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 8 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (3,853 vs 3,870).
- ❌2.2% HIGHER MSRP$188 MSRPvs$184 MSRP
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-2400 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-2400.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-2400 better than FX-6120?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-2400 | FX-6120 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 85 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 87 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 70 FPS | 78 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 62 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 56 FPS | 57 FPS |
| high | 43 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 34 FPS | 36 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-2400 | FX-6120 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 87 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 92 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 71 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 96 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-2400 | FX-6120 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-2400 | FX-6120 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 96 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-2400 and FX-6120

Core i5-2400
Core i5-2400
The Core i5-2400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 9 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6144 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,870 points. Launch price was $60.

FX-6120
FX-6120
The FX-6120 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,853 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
The Core i5-2400 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the FX-6120 offers 6 cores / 6 threads — the FX-6120 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i5-2400 versus 4.2 GHz on the FX-6120 — a 21.1% clock advantage for the FX-6120 (base: 3.1 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i5-2400 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the FX-6120 uses Zambezi (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-2400 scores 3,870 against the FX-6120's 3,853 — a 0.4% lead for the Core i5-2400. L3 cache: 6144 kB (total) on the Core i5-2400 vs 8 MB (total) on the FX-6120.
| Feature | Core i5-2400 | FX-6120 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4 | 6 / 6+50% |
| Boost Clock | 3.4 GHz | 4.2 GHz+24% |
| Base Clock | 3.1 GHz | 3.6 GHz+16% |
| L3 Cache | 6144 kB (total) | 8 MB (total)+33% |
| L2 Cache | 256 kB (per core) | 6 MB+2300% |
| Process | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Zambezi (2011−2012) |
| PassMark | 3,870 | 3,853 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 595 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-2400 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the FX-6120 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i5-2400 | FX-6120 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1155 | AM3+ |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-2400) / not specified (FX-6120). The Core i5-2400 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 2000), while the FX-6120 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-2400 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-2400 rivals Phenom II X4 975.
| Feature | Core i5-2400 | FX-6120 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | — |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics 2000 | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, EPT | — |
| Target Use | Legacy Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-2400 launched at $184 MSRP, while the FX-6120 debuted at $188. On MSRP ($184 vs $188), the Core i5-2400 is $4 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-2400 delivers 21.0 pts/$ vs 20.5 pts/$ for the FX-6120 — making the Core i5-2400 the 2.6% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-2400 | FX-6120 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $184-2% | $188 |
| Performance per Dollar | 21.0+2% | 20.5 |
| Release Date | 2011 | 2012 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













