CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6350 vs 6300 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

5.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
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!
VS
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
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 0 MB Compared to all cpus, 8 MB l3 cache is just OK
Significantly lower typical power consumption 77.19W vs 101.56W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score 7,541 vs 3,626.2 More than 2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 1.33 MB/core vs 0 MB/core Compared to all cpus, 1.33 MB/core l3 cache per core is just OK
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 7.32 pt/$ vs 6.12 pt/$ Around 20% better performance per dollar
Higher Maximum operating temperature 62.5 °C vs 61 °C Almost the same
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year vs 30.11 $/year Around 25% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 6350 vs 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6350
8,598
FX 6300
7,871

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6350
2,174
FX 6300
2,053

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
8,173
FX 6300
7,447

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 6350
9,528
FX 6300
8,232

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 6350
6,620
FX 6300
6,080

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

FX 6350
18,021
FX 6300
16,213

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 6350
4,302
FX 6300
4,101

Reviews Word on the street

FX 6350  vs 6300 

7.0
8.0
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 6350  vs
6300 
Clock speed 3.9 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz 4.1 GHz
Cores Hexa core Hexa 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

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

details

FX 6350  vs
6300 
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 0 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 0 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
Operating temperature Unknown - 61°C Unknown - 62.5°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 3 82
Overclocked clock speed 4.66 GHz 4.77 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.89 GHz 4.8 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
AMD FX 6350
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Comments

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 warranted 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