Core i7-9700K vs FX-6330

CPU

GPU

Core i7-9700K

8 Cores8 Thrd95 WWMax: 4.9 GHz2018

Popular choices:

•••••••••

FX-6330

6 Cores6 Thrd125 WWMax: 4.2 GHz2015

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core i7-9700K

8 / 8

14,397

+224.8%

4,433

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

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 i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +160.6% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while FX-6330 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 40.7 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $109 MSRP).

FX-6330

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $276 less on MSRP ($109 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Delivers 8.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 40.7 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($109 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (4,433 vs 14,397).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

FX-6330

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +160.6% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while FX-6330 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Costs $276 less on MSRP ($109 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Delivers 8.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 40.7 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($109 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 40.7 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $109 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (4,433 vs 14,397).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-9700K better than FX-6330?

Yes. Core i7-9700K is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 160.6% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data, 224.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-9700K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 160.6% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-9700K is the better fit. You are getting 224.8% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Core i7-9700K is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Core i7-9700K is 253.2% more expensive on MSRP at $385 MSRP versus $109 MSRP, and it gives you a 160.6% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. FX-6330 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2015 platform. Even with 8.8% better value on paper (40.7 vs 37.4 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3+.

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

Core i7-9700K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2015), 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 6/6. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

FX-6330 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	FX-6330
1080p
low	308 FPS	111 FPS
medium	278 FPS	111 FPS
high	231 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	111 FPS
medium	221 FPS	111 FPS
high	178 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	65 FPS
medium	140 FPS	57 FPS
high	108 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open FX-6330

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	FX-6330
1080p
low	360 FPS	111 FPS
medium	321 FPS	111 FPS
high	291 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	111 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	111 FPS
medium	282 FPS	111 FPS
high	258 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	111 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	111 FPS
medium	221 FPS	111 FPS
high	208 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	111 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open FX-6330

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	FX-6330
1080p
low	360 FPS	111 FPS
medium	360 FPS	111 FPS
high	360 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	111 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	111 FPS
medium	360 FPS	111 FPS
high	360 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	111 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	111 FPS
medium	360 FPS	111 FPS
high	360 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	111 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open FX-6330

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	FX-6330
1080p
low	360 FPS	111 FPS
medium	360 FPS	111 FPS
high	360 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	111 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	111 FPS
medium	360 FPS	111 FPS
high	360 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	111 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	111 FPS
medium	360 FPS	111 FPS
high	360 FPS	111 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	111 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open FX-6330

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and FX-6330

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

FX-6330

The FX-6330 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 December 2015 (9 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) 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): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,433 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the FX-6330 offers 6 cores / 6 threads — the Core i7-9700K has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.2 GHz on the FX-6330 — a 15.4% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the FX-6330 uses Vishera (2012−2015) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the FX-6330's 4,433 — a 105.8% lead for the Core i7-9700K. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 8 MB (total) on the FX-6330.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	FX-6330
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+33%	6 / 6
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+17%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz	3.6 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	6 MB+2300%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Vishera (2012−2015)
PassMark	14,397+225%	4,433

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the FX-6330 uses AM3+ (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	FX-6330
Socket	LGA1151	AM3+
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) / not specified (FX-6330). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the FX-6330 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	FX-6330
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the FX-6330 debuted at $109. On MSRP ($385 vs $109), the FX-6330 is $276 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 40.7 pts/$ for the FX-6330 — making the FX-6330 the 8.4% better value option.