|
| 7.6 Out of 10 |  |
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)It's not far off in terms of gaming, with our low-end Batman: AC scores showing 155fps for the FX-6300 versus 164FPS for the stock-clocked i5-3570K.
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)The benchmarks show that almost across the board this chip is faster than the higher clocked six-core CPU.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of the AMD FX 6300
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
| 7.6 | CPUBoss Score |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
Benchmarks Real world tests of the AMD FX 6300
GeekBench (32-bit)
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Cinebench R11.5
Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)
Passmark
Passmark (Single Core)
Reviews Word on the street for the AMD FX 6300
 |
| |
|---|---|---|
What People Are Saying Give it to me straight
Socket Type
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)That's not the only difference between this and the previous chip as, despite having the same general make-up and 14MB cache size, the FX-6300 has got a lower TDP than the Bulldozer.
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)Part of that is down to the fact that it's a very cool-running chip - at stock speeds it's running at 28°C under load.
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)Especially considering it's only just over £100.
Performance
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)The multi-threaded performance easily eclipses a stock Core i5, and almost manages to do the same in single-threaded performance too.
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)Still, as a budget alternative, the FX-6300 is a very capable CPU offering decent multi-threaded performance, even at stock speed for use in productivity-related tasks and improved gaming performance too.
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)We've even managed to push the FX-6300 over 5GHz and had it stably posting benchmark scores.
Multicore
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)Steamroller should squeeze more into each Bulldozer module to allow each core to function much more like a traditional CPU core, and should seriously beef up the single-threaded performance of the next generation processors.
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)The essential make-up still remains the same with each module housing most of the silicon that makes up a traditional core.
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)Still, the same Bulldozer problems reared their heads with that six-core chip as with the eight-core: namely weak single-threaded performance.
Power
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)With the clockspeeds taking a cut compared to the previous processor, and a lower overall TDP to boot, you might be forgiven for thinking the overclocking prowess of this Piledriver CPU may have been compromised.
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)Pleasingly that drop in both TDP and clockspeed doesn't mean this is a slower chip in real-world terms.
Socket
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)In the other straight CPU performance tests in Cinebench it shows a very slight advantage, though the improvements in single-threaded performance aren't as pronounced as with the FX-8350.
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary
| Clock speed | 3.5 GHz |
|---|---|
| Turbo clock speed | 4.1 GHz |
| Cores | Hexa core |
| Socket type | AM3+ |
| Is unlocked | Yes |
| Is hyperthreaded | No |
features
| Has a NX bit | Yes |
|---|---|
| Has virtualization support | Yes |
| Instruction-set-extensions |
|
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes |
gpu
| GPU | None |
|---|---|
| Label | None |
| Latest DirectX | None |
| Number of displays supported | None |
| GPU clock speed | None |
| Turbo clock speed | None |
| 3DMark06 | None |
memory controller
| Memory controller | Built-in |
|---|---|
| Memory type |
|
| Channels | Dual Channel |
| Maximum bandwidth | 29,866.66 MB/s |
details
| Architecture | x86-64 |
|---|---|
| Threads | 6 threads |
| L2 cache | 6 MB |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core |
| L3 cache | 8 MB |
| L3 cache per core | 1.33 MB/core |
| Manufacture process | 32 nms |
| Transistor count | 1,600,000,000 |
| Max CPUs | 1 |
| Voltage range | 0.8 - 1.43V |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 62.5°C |
overclocking
| Overclock popularity | 82 |
|---|---|
| Overclock review score | 0.8 |
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.79 GHz |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.73 GHz |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 7,541 |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.79 GHz |
power consumption
| TDP | 95W |
|---|---|
| Annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year |
| Performance per watt | 7.44 pt/W |
| Typical power consumption | 77.19W |
bus
| Clock speed | 2,600 MHz |
|---|
Report a correction Follow us
Compare
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $340 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $385 | $329 | |
| 5820K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS | |
| $240 | $329 | |
| 4690K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $85 | |
| N3530 vs 3110M | ||
| | VS | |
| $329 | $340 | |
| 4790K vs 4770K | ||
Comments
Showing 3 comments.
