CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6300 vs 7650K among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

FX 6300
6.0
A8 7650K
7.1
FX 8350
7.3
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

FX 6300
5.5
A8 7650K
5.0
FX 8350
5.9
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

FX 6300
0.0
A8 7650K
10.0
FX 8350
0.0
Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

FX 6300
0.0
A8 7650K
8.5
FX 8350
0.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

FX 6300
5.9
A8 7650K
8.8
FX 8350
5.6
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 6300
6.8
A8 7650K
9.7
FX 8350
7.2
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

10

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

FX 6300
5.7
A8 7650K
10.0
FX 8350
5.9

Winner
AMD FX 6300 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 6300  based on its performance, single-core performance and value.

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 3.8 GHz Around 10% higher turbo clock speed
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 PassMark score 6,444 vs 4,936 More than 30% better PassMark score
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.76 GHz vs 4.02 GHz Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per watt 9.8 pt/W vs 3.25 pt/W More than 3x better performance per watt
Much better performance per dollar 11.94 pt/$ vs 3.43 pt/$ Around 3.5x better performance per dollar
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit score 16,213 vs 12,955 More than 25% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 4,101 vs 3,936 Around 5% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Front view of AMD A8 7650K

Reasons to consider the
AMD A8 7650K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 6300 vs A8 7650K

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 6300
16,213
A8 7650K
12,955

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 6300
4,101
A8 7650K
3,936

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 6300
6,444
A8 7650K
4,936

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 6300
1,446
A8 7650K
1,428

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 6300  vs
A8 7650K 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz 3.8 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core

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

power consumption

TDP 95W 95W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 9.8 pt/W 3.25 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 77.19W

details

FX 6300  vs
A8 7650K 
Threads 6 4
L2 cache 6 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.76 GHz 4.02 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.82 GHz 4.86 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.76 GHz 4.02 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A AMD Radeon R7 (6 CUs)
GPU clock speed N/A 720 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-2133
DDR3-1866
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 34,133.32 MB/s
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction
AMD A8 7650K
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus