CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6350 vs 6300 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)


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 Face detection and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Overall Performance and TDP


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Overall Performance and Price


CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

AMD FX 6300 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 6300  based on its power consumption 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!
Front view of AMD FX 6300

AMD FX 6300

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 6350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6350

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 3.9 GHz vs 3.5 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 4.1 GHz Almost the same
Newer Apr, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 6 months later
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 77.19W vs 101.56W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 7,541 vs 3,626.2 More than 2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Better performance per watt 7.7 pt/W vs 6.37 pt/W More than 20% better performance per watt
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.77 GHz vs 4.66 GHz Almost the same
Better performance per dollar 8.13 pt/$ vs 7.23 pt/$ More than 10% better performance per dollar
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year vs 30.11 $/year Around 25% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 6350 vs 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6350
FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6350
FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6350
2,470,000 MB/s
FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6350
FX 6300

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6350
FX 6300

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 6350
FX 6300

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 6350
FX 6300

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 6350
FX 6300

Reviews Word on the street

FX 6350  vs 6300 

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.
FX 6300

Specifications Full list of technical specs


FX 6350  vs
Clock speed 3.9 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz 4.1 GHz
Cores Hexa core Hexa core
Socket type
Is unlocked Yes Yes


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


FX 6350  vs
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 6 6
L2 cache 6 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.33 MB/core 1.33 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 21 20
Voltage range 0.8 - 1.45V 0.8 - 1.43V


Overclock popularity 3 82
Overclocked clock speed 4.66 GHz 4.77 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.89 GHz 4.82 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 3,626.2 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.66 GHz 4.77 GHz

power consumption

TDP 125W 95W
Annual home energy cost 30.11 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 109.5 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 6.37 pt/W 7.7 pt/W
Typical power consumption 101.56W 77.19W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
AMD FX 6350
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction


Showing 10 comments.
if you haven't realized amd always does this 8320-8350 8350-9590 6300-6350 4300-4350 simple solution stop bashing amd fucktard, buy the lower model and overlock it to match the performance. oh don't you remember the time haswell i5 and i3 were barely an upgrade from ivy bridge, oh right intel fanboy that doesn't matter shit
asus m5a97 am3+
well, amd sells the same cpu 40 euro more expensive and the real difference is the 400 mhz more, gg amd
What's a good low-price motherboard for the 6300? A good one as in overclocking, etc. Thanks!
I bought the 6350 a year ago because it came in a bundle with my MOBO and ram for $70 off.
Stock overclock is a guarranted overclock speed and stability.
yes but, the x versions or higher clocked versions are also better binned meaning they have better silicon in them.
OK AMD really needs to stop crap like this! All the 6350 is, is a warmer running overclocked 6300 at the same price as the 8320 is, When you can just overclock the 6300 and pay much less. I am grateful for my R9 270 because I was able to get a R9 series card for under $200, But still both the 270X and 270 are the same. And the 270X costs more for just a higher clock you can do yourself, When they should have just priced the R9 270X under $200 to start with. Just like when they came out with the FX-6350 they should have priced it the same as the 6300 and dropped the 6300.
I'd say the 6300 clearly wins, with a lower price point and better overclocking. as well as the lower tdp. it probably would have come out ahead on this site if price was factored in.
another one that's extremely close "too close to call" imo. can't go wrong with either one. Though I prefer the 6300 as it has a lower TDP
comments powered by Disqus