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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the FX 6300 vs the Athlon X4 860K.

Front view of AMD Athlon X4 860K

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon X4 860K

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Athlon X4 860K vs the FX 6300.

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 6300 vs Athlon X4 860K

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s
Athlon X4 860K
2,290,000 MB/s

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 6300

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 6300

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 6300

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 6300

Specifications Full list of technical specs


FX 6300  vs
Athlon X4 860K 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Is unlocked Yes Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3

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 9.84 pt/W 9.83 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 77.19W


FX 6300  vs
Athlon X4 860K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
L2 cache 6 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 28 nm


Overclocked clock speed 4.75 GHz 4.37 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.82 GHz 4.45 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.75 GHz 4.37 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction
AMD Athlon X4 860K
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 18 comments.
6300. Absolutely, especially for streaming. When you stream you always want to go more cores and plus the 6300 has a better clock speed.
A bunch of BS. I own both processors with the same configurations, I swear the 860k is way slower. I would recommend getting the 6300.
Athlon I'm using it for my pc
its not an apu, its just not a fucking apu. an fm2/fm2+ socket doesn't make it an apu.
yes,true... Im not only who see how much is strong "cheap" quad core 860K... ;)
Definitely go with the athlon 860k
What would be better for streaming athlon or 6300 but if i get 6300 ill have to get a 750ti but if i get the athlon ill get a 770 or 960
Wonder when will they get a chip that's better than the 860k, without losing out on the single threading performance while having a better overall performance? The FX series uses the AM3+ chipset which may become obsolete in the future, and the Athlon X4 860k is very much overclockable. What makes this chip more appealing than the bulkier chips, is that it's capable of playing lots of games provided you take the savings from the chip and put it onto better GPU, RAM, and Power Supply. For some reason people tend to overlook the quality of the motherboard in order to get more savings out of it.
I see the value of an APU, don't get my wrong. In fact I recommended my mom get an A10-7850k for her new computer because she plays games and shit, I'm building a media server and don't need the graphics performance, especially at the cost of CPU performance, so I'll be getting the Athlon x4 860k, and I've got an old 6770 lying around that'll be plenty fast for the occasional rendering, or video encoding I may need.
Yep, Actual mileage can vary a lot depending on use. Saw a really good example of that a couple years ago. An older slower CPU was running a program faster than a much newer and very much faster CPU. The reason was L2 cache. It was large enough in the ancient CPU to have most of the program and it's data in L2 cache while the newer faster CPU had access main memory. And cost is a factor for most of us. For those wanting a basic internet and email computer the APU based systems can be very hard to beat. But an APU is not going to be as fast as a similar generation CPU with a Video Card and need not cost a lot more. All those reasons and optimized benchmarks makes it hard to compare without trying them yourself but gives endless fodder for opinion and discussion.
I noticed the score is slightly higher, but I have trouble believing an APU will be better than AMDs high end cpu, outside of arbitrary "benchmarks" that the cpus are probably optimized for to begin with
The FX 6300 would be better because it has more cores. That is how it gets a CPU Passmark rating of 6353 compared to the 860K Passmark of 5636 (higher is better). Intel would be better but only if price is not taken into account, which would be the case if you were concerned about saving time, or being productive, while editing video. But the CPU is only one part of the system and in the case of the 860K, and Intel, the GPU and video card used will make a major difference in which system is ultimately better.
What the heck are you saying? Lol!
You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
what's better for gaming and editing video ?
Me too, it is without overclocking quiet a big bottleneck to a 280X, but with it is fine.
I have had my FX-6300 for since August 13', and can say from personal experience that this chip has solid performance for gaming, photo shop and video streaming. This FX has never given me any issues
How about updating the FX-6300 amazon store page? The price is over $100 since you included the "retail" version. Here's cheaper FX-6300's:
comments powered by Disqus