CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 8320 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

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 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 8320 Black Edition vs the 6300 Black Edition.

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 8320 Black Edition.

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8320 vs 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
10,352
FX 6300
7,871

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
2,066
FX 6300
2,053

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
2,320,000 MB/s
FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
9,798
FX 6300
7,447

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8320
10,594
FX 6300
8,232

GeekBench

FX 8320
11,631
FX 6300
9,503

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8320
8,183
FX 6300
6,444

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8320
1,402
FX 6300
1,446

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 8320  vs
6300 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4 GHz 4.1 GHz
Cores Octa 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 8320  vs
6300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 6
L2 cache 8 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1 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 20 20
Voltage range 0.8 - 1.43V 0.8 - 1.43V
Operating temperature Unknown - 61.1°C Unknown - 62.5°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 63 82
Overclocked clock speed 4.56 GHz 4.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.75 GHz 4.82 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 9,317 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.56 GHz 4.75 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 7.79 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 101.56W 77.19W

bus

Clock speed 2,600 MHz 2,600 MHz
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
AJPinto is correct. You can't trust CPU boss because they don't test hardware in real life situations. IE rendering / gaming / anything processor intensive. One thing you have to realize is that the fx 6300 is OLD now, VERY OLD. It runs very poorly with new gpu's and motherboards nowadays. If you play any game that is going to have multiple npc / Real players on the screen then you want the fx 8320 minimum if you're going AMD build. Thank me later for not wasting money on the ancient fx 6300 cpu. (I used it for 2 years on everything you can imagine. IT'S SHIT!)
LOL I know. They're idiots. They always assume less watts is what is important. You pair a high watt cpu with a low watt GPU and you're fine...
Another reason to not follow this website, I lead people to this comparison because CPU boss will always pick the CPU that uses less watts and is cheaper, the don't compare performance at least from the overall score which mis-leads people. they need to change how things are rated, the charges are nice and well done, though basing the overall score on 2 factors is meaningless. Anyone who knows a little bit about these 2 CPU's will know that the FX 6300 will lose to most thing other then its higher turbo which shows in the single core performance. Thats what 3 thins it barely wins in? And the 8320 is the winner in every other test, and it gets a lower score?
I have owned each of those chips, the FX8320 will crush the FX6300 even with overclocking. You can get the FX6300 (OCed) close to the performance of the FX8320 (Stock), but just toss the same OC on the FX8320 and it wins again. There is nothing you can do to the FX6300 to make up for the FX8320 having 2 extra cores. You can put the FX6300 on cheaper motherboards and safely overclock it due to its lower TDP, so it is much better for cheap builds. Don't get me wrong, both are very good chips for their age but the 8core is better if it can be squeezed in to the budget.
FX 6300 there is not going to be much of a difference with the 8320 because while that is a good GPU you will be bottle necked most of the time by the GPU with either processor.
The 6300 is very good for OC. But the 8320 (and 8350) is better. If you were to overclock both, the 8320 would surpass the 6300 just by nature. All in all, they're both very good CPU's, especially for the price. My friend got the 6300 and I got the 8320 when we built our PC's. It's really just a matter of preference.
Doubt it.
Here is a REAL six-core cpu. Modules are just modules. And as i have said, Sharing resources doesnt make them octacores-hexacores- quad cores!!
WRONG ! 8 cores AMD = 4 modules of 2 cores each. 6 cores AMD = 3 modules of 2 cores each. 4 cores AMD = 2 modules of 2 cores each. The software indicates 2 thread per core while it is 2 cores per module. There is no fraud. http://media.laruche.com/2012/10/amd-vishera-vue-sur-architecture-4.jpg
Which one will go better with my graphic card? AMD R9 270 DD XFX 2GB Edition
Its so funny to see nerds complaining about people arguing about CPUs and GPUs... Go get a girlfriend for god's sake! LOL XD
[insert generic, lonely, loser, virgin comment]
Yes but FX 6300 and i5 isn't the same. FX have six cores but logical, intel have four cores physical.
Its so funny to see nerds arguing about CPUs and GPUs... Go get a girlfriend for god's sake! LOL XD
It is from the system info with Cinebench R11.5 at the same time. The system info says 3 cores with 6 logical processors. Cinebench reads also 3 cores like the system info with 6 Threads. All of AMD processors are quad, triple, dual core with somekind of hyperthreading BUT on a hardware level. Sharing resources doesnt make them octacores-hexacores- quad cores!! They use modules! Modules are not real cores! The last real 6core was the Phenom II X6 1100. The marketing of AMD is a big fraud!
All AMD proccessors are quad-triple-dual core with somekind of hypertheading but on hardware level..
Wrong again, 8 cores, 2 per module.
Idiot, 8 core 8 threads 2 cores per module whereas a lot of other CPUs have a module per core. They still have 8 or 6 cores respectively. The difference is just that 2 cores will share the same resources, resources being CPU level cache.
yeah but how is it better when it uses all hes cores?
*All AMD processors are quad-triple-dual MODULE,not core ;) Every module has 2 cores.Module is NOT the same as core.
They have 8 REAL cores they just share resources
All AMD proccessors are quad-triple-dual core, they uses modules and logical proccessors that dont have the performance of 6-8 cores. A FX with 8 cores (4 real cores) is equal to a i5 with 4 cores.
No, it is octa core.
Read the box your 8320 came in before you make corrections.
I own the FX 8320 for a couple weeks now .. It's a solid CPU , but it's a quad core , not octa core.
comments powered by Disqus