CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6300 vs 4300 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

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

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 6300 Black Edition vs the 4300 Black Edition.

Front view of AMD FX 4300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 4300

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 4300 Black Edition vs the 6300 Black Edition.

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 6300 vs 4300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
7,871
FX 4300
5,582

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
2,053
FX 4300
1,981

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s
FX 4300
2,210,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6300
7,447
FX 4300
5,404

GeekBench

FX 6300
9,503
FX 4300
5,404

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 6300
6,080
FX 4300
6,610

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 6300
6,444
FX 4300
4,651

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 6300
1,446
FX 4300
1,406

Reviews Word on the street

FX 6300  vs 4300 

8.0
5.0
That said you don't really need to have an overclocking mobo to push the Core i5 up over 4.5GHz and gaming performance will quickly outstrip the AMD chip.
FX 6300

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 6300  vs
4300 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.8 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Socket type
AM3+
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

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

details

FX 6300  vs
4300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 6 4
L2 cache 6 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 4 MB
L3 cache per core 1.33 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,200,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Die size 319 mm² 319 mm²
Clock multiplier 20 20
Voltage range 0.8 - 1.43V 0.81 - 1.43V
Operating temperature Unknown - 62.5°C Unknown - 70.5°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 82 7
Overclocked clock speed 4.76 GHz 4.45 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.81 GHz 4.98 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.76 GHz 4.45 GHz

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 9.86 pt/W 9.26 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 77.19W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction
AMD FX 4300
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
In my experience, I found the opposite to be true, as my FX-8320 was performing badly enough in games that I upgraded to my first new Intel processor since 2008 in November of 2014. I felt like as if my hardware might've been defective somehow, but my Intel put a stop to that. Nowadays though, I don't really care for games as much. Whether or not it was defective, I don't know. What I do know is that one does not simply overclock a hot Bulldozer chip on a budget board, let alone with its stock cooler. The people who realize this avoid it by purchasing an expensive motherboard and CPU cooler, all to find out that they have been deprived as well. Whether you shell out the money for the expensive hardware or not, you can never escape Bulldozer's shortcomings, and thus, you wind up losing in the end. That is why I say AMD is poor value.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2310030 -- i5-3570 oc'd @ 3.8 w/ gtx 770 (score=7000) http://www.3dmark.com/fs/4313398 --FX-8320 oc'd @ 4.0 w/ gtx770 (score=6946) Gaming experiences are very close as well, and difficult to tell unless you were to run split screen and nit-pick. In-game, you would never notice.
Joseph, if you're just gaming the AMD's will be just fine. I own several of each brand (Intel/AMD) and the difference between an FX-8320 oc'd @4.00 is neglible and equal to my I5-3570K, especially when I pair them with the same video card. (I used a GTX 770 for my comparison). The cost of the mobo and chip for AMD is much cheaper. Some games are requiring quad-cores these days and the G3258, a good cpu just won't cut it. The i3's with hyperthreading would be fine if you can get a nice budget board. Yes, I agree a fx-4350, etc are equivalent to a dual core but with a bit extra, especially the o.c. factor. When someone is crunching every single penny when purchasing a system, the AMD's will save them money and only cost a few FPS if a quality gpu is bought.
Basically, AMD's current Athlon series are their APUs without GPUs. That processor is based on the "Steamroller" architecture, which is based on Piledriver, which is based on Bulldozer...so it has the same inherent flaws that I have described.
btw im getting a gtx 770 now i think
what about AMD Athlon X4 860K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor
Maybe not the maximum FPS, but that's just maximum. In average FPS, the FX-4300 is likely to be holding back that 960 a lot, depending on the game. You might as well put a GTX 980 on a Pentium 4! FX-4300 - Native dual-core, low single-thread G3258 - Native dual-core, high single-thread FX-6300 - Native triple-core, low single-thread If you want a "perfect" choice, you simply need to step up to an i5 & a GTX 960. If you can't manage that, that's okay, just get a G3258 instead. AMD cannot save you from the facts, their marketing is anything besides facts. It's up to you.
but a 750ti won't run games at the fps that the 4300 and gtx 960 will
That suffers the same architectural problems as I was describing before. If you want to go in as cheap as possible, get a G3258 with a 750 Ti, and that should still run your games great, albeit maybe stuttering in GTA 5 (which may be fixable). According to this site, the FX-6300 has barely any advantage in multi-core performance over the G3258, which is cheaper, and also has far, far more single-core performance.
i'm was going to upgrade my cpu to the 6300 next may?
You may benefit from an i5. I've heard GTA 5 seems to have trouble on the Pentium G3258, but, not owning the game, it's difficult for me to help. However, I have found a video with a supposed fix: https://youtu.be/enMT8Exky4g If you don't want to take the risk, though, I suggest you buy a cheaper GPU than the 960 instead, and with the saved money, you buy an i5-4460 instead of a Pentium G3258. This way, your performance problem won't be stutters, it'll simply be not being able to run as high with the graphics details.
Basically gta 5 any game i would normally get gta 5 black ops 3 new south park game dragon ball xenoverse naruto ultimate ninja storm games anything basically at 1080p medium-high hopefully
The gimped quad-core lacks Quick Sync, so you won't have a dedicated encoder for your streams. This means the CPU has to do all the work, and you don't want to give a weak processor more work. Since the Intel has Quick Sync, you don't lose one of your only two cores to streaming; both are available for the game you are running. Additionally, AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture suffers from lower single-core performance than Intel, resulting in the CPU holding back the GPU. That means, as soon as the AMD CPU holds back your GPU, you are losing out on the GPU performance you paid to have. A GTX 960 is a good GPU (that's what I have in my own desktop PC), but I can't help but wonder what you're looking to run on it. A GTX 960 on a Pentium or any AMD sounds rather unbalanced. Care to name some games, and what resolution and detail settings you'll be running them at?
and i picked the cheapest case there was btw and isn't even a gimped quad core better than a good dual core?
i was only getting r9 380 because it was £119 but it isn't anymore getting a gtx 960 now
You don't "need" a quad-core for streaming, and, besides, you picked a dual-core marketed as a quad-core. The Pentium G3258 features Quick Sync, which enables you to dedicate its HD Graphics towards video encoding. That means you aren't spending one of your only two CPU cores on streaming. I recommend using the very-popular Open Broadcasting Software (OBS), which supports this. This cannot be done on the AMD. I have a GA-78LMT-USB3 myself; it was the first board I used for my trashy FX-8320 processor. It's reliable, but it lacks in features, and only features SATA revision 2, 3 Gb/s. You can do better than that. There's also no reason to put that mATX board in an ATX case. There are more flaws than that, but let me just give you a part list already: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/B68vJx Just throw in the video card of your choice, and it's all done. I recommend against using a flamethrower for a video card, as this is mITX, which conserves a lot of space. Of course, you're welcome to change this to mATX, or even ATX, if you so desire. Whatever you do, just keep the board form factor the same as the case, and don't buy AMD's false marketing.
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/NarutoSennin/saved/XDV8TW this is what im getting btw and i want to stream a little so i need quad core
Have you taken the motherboard, power supply, CPU cooler and what not into account, too? AMDs are really poor value, and it becomes more apparent once you do this. Really, those aren't even fully-enabled quad core processors, you can look at them in two ways; a glorified dual-core, or a gimped quad-core. The same goes for every Bulldozer/Piledriver processor; the true core amount is half of what's stated. I'd say you either get the Pentium G3258, or an i3-41x0. Neither are quad-cores, but AMD's FX-4xx0s aren't, either. If you want four cores, you'll have to get an i5, which starts around $190, whereas the G3258 and i3-41x0 are around $70 and $120 respectively. Between the G3258 and i3, it depends whether or not you care to overclock, and whether or not you'd like the extra two threads. G3258 if you want to OC, i3 if not. G3258 if you're fine with two threads, i3 if you aren't fine with it. Don't even consider the AMDs anymore, they're just terrible, and I say all of this from facts and my own experience, not assumptions.
i don't know what cpu to get because the only quad cores i can afford are amd
You cannot make up for a bottleneck by throwing good components at other, slower ones. Whether or not you will actually hit a bottleneck depends on what you'll be running, but there's no question that even if you throw a GTX 980 Ti at a Pentium 4, it's still not going to run modern games well, and will only serve to be an enormous waste of money, power, time, and effort. Likewise, AMD FX bottlenecks can only be solved by replacing the processor with a more efficient type.
im getting a gtx 960 4gb so i think that should make up for it maybe?
I see. Interesting. It's not by very much, though, even despite the significantly higher frequency. I also see that it's approximately a hair faster than the 8320 in single-core.
In single core performance the 4300 is actually better than the 8300 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8300-vs-AMD-FX-4300
Well, I understand that lots of people say that, but it's either the lack of single-core performance, or some other factor(s) that gave me the performance issues I had with my 8320. Swapping over to a 4790K seemed to give me an all-around performance increase, games included, without even swapping the GPU. However, since there are so many variables associated with a platform swap like that, it's somewhat difficult to know what, exactly, increased the performance.
in the single core performance there isn't that much of a difference apparently
comments powered by Disqus