Athlon 300U vs FX-6120

Athlon 300U vs FX-6120 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 300U

2 / 4

3,861

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

FX-6120

6 / 6

3,853

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

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.

Athlon 300U vs FX-6120 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 300U vs FX-6120: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 300U

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 15W instead of 95W, a 80W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon RX Vega 3, while FX-6120 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 8 MB).

FX-6120

2012

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,853 vs 3,861).
❌Launch MSRP is still $188 MSRP, while Athlon 300U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌533.3% higher power demand at 95W vs 15W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Athlon 300U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon 300U better than FX-6120?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, FX-6120 is ahead with a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 300U pulls ahead with 0.2% better PassMark. FX-6120 also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 300U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Athlon 300U is still the much better call for a fresh build. Athlon 300U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $188 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. FX-6120 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (20.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3+.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Athlon 300U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 6/6. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Athlon 300U vs FX-6120 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 300U

The Athlon 300U is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Raven Ridge 2 (2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 3,861 points. Launch price was $149.

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 Athlon 300U packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the FX-6120 offers 6 cores / 6 threads — the FX-6120 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the Athlon 300U versus 4.2 GHz on the FX-6120 — a 24% clock advantage for the FX-6120 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Athlon 300U uses the Raven Ridge 2 (2019) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-6120 uses Zambezi (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 300U scores 3,861 against the FX-6120's 3,853 — a 0.2% lead for the Athlon 300U. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Athlon 300U vs 8 MB (total) on the FX-6120.

Feature	Athlon 300U	FX-6120
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	6 / 6+200%
Boost Clock	3.3 GHz	4.2 GHz+27%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	3.6 GHz+50%
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	8 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+8433%	6 MB
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Raven Ridge 2 (2019)	Zambezi (2011−2012)
PassMark	3,861	3,853
Geekbench 6 Single	900	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,800	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 300U uses the FP5 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-6120 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Athlon 300U	FX-6120
Socket	FP5	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	12	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon 300U) / not specified (FX-6120). The Athlon 300U includes integrated graphics (Radeon RX Vega 3), while the FX-6120 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Athlon 300U targets Budget Laptop.