CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6300 vs 7850K among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

FX 6300
6.9
A10 7850K
7.9
FX 8350
7.9
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

FX 6300
7.3
A10 7850K
7.5
FX 8350
7.5
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

FX 6300
0.0
A10 7850K
10.0
FX 8350
0.0
Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

FX 6300
0.0
A10 7850K
9.1
FX 8350
0.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

FX 6300
5.2
A10 7850K
6.1
FX 8350
5.1
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 6300
6.1
A10 7850K
6.9
FX 8350
6.2
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

9.4

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

FX 6300
5.6
A10 7850K
9.4
FX 8350
5.8

Winner
AMD A10 7850K 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD A10 7850K  based on its single-core performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Much higher turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz vs 4 GHz Almost the same
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 4 MB 50% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit score 16,213 vs 14,027 More than 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Front view of AMD A10 7850K

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 7850K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,569 vs 1,446 Around 10% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 72.4 °C vs 62.5 °C More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Higher clock speed 3.7 GHz vs 3.5 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 77.19W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Newer Jan, 2014 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
Lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 6300 vs A10 7850K

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
7,871
A10 7850K
7,022

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
2,053
A10 7850K
2,328

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s
A10 7850K
2,370,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
7,447
A10 7850K
6,479

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
8,232
A10 7850K
7,102

GeekBench

FX 6300
9,503
A10 7850K
7,102

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 6300
6,444
A10 7850K
5,503

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 6300
1,446
A10 7850K
1,569

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 6300  vs
A10 7850K 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Socket type
AM3+
FM2+
Is unlocked Yes Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-2133
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 34,133.32 MB/s

details

FX 6300  vs
A10 7850K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 6 4
L2 cache 6 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 62.5°C Unknown - 72.4°C

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ R7 Series
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0

power consumption

TDP 95W 65W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 9.79 pt/W 9.86 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 52.81W
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction
AMD A10 7850K
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 3 comments.
I honestly think there is very little difference. The 6300 is a better cpu overall, however the a10 does do slightly better in single threaded applications. The A10 of course also has integrated graphics, however this obviously won't make a difference with a dedicated gpu. Probably the most important thing to consider is the platforms. am3 is very different from fm2. that is probably what you should make your decision on
You may not see this as its been two years but can you give me a good idea, a quantitative number, on how much better the FX does versus the newer A10 Kaveri? I am looking to build a budget gaming and advanced amateur photoshop CS4 machine. At this time they are within $5 in price. We are looking at 4 cores (A10) vs 6 cores (FX) but do you think that game designers are going to go past 4 cores? Also, with programming advancements like Mantle, Vulcan and a soon to be released DirectX 12, won't the playing field be leveled a bit as long as you have a good GPU? Thanks in advance if you see this and answer.....or anyone else????
The A10 does better in Single threaded games and the FX does better in multi threaded games that supports more than 4 cpu cores such as Crysis 3.
comments powered by Disqus