CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 8320 vs 6300

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

FX 8320
7.8
FX 6300
7.2
Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

FX 8320
7.8
FX 6300
7.9
Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

FX 8320
9.8
FX 6300
9.6
Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 8320
7.7
FX 6300
8.0
Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

FX 8320
7.9
FX 6300
7.6

Winner
AMD FX 8320 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8320  based on its .

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

AMD FX 8320

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of AMD FX 8320

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More cores 8 vs 6 2 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 8 vs 6 2 more threads
Better PassMark (Overclocked) score 9,317 vs 7,541 Around 25% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Better PassMark score 8,183 vs 6,444 More than 25% better PassMark score
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 10,555 vs 8,216 Around 30% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 20,870 vs 16,213 Around 30% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Lower typical power consumption 77.19W vs 101.56W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
More l3 cache per core 1.33 MB/core vs 1 MB/core Around 35% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per dollar 6.54 pt/$ vs 5.83 pt/$ More than 10% better performance per dollar
Lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
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 8320 vs 6300

GeekBench (32-bit)

FX 8320
9,883
FX 6300
7,498

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8320
6,200
FX 6300
6,080
FX 8320 FX 6300 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R11.5

FX 8320
6.28
FX 6300
4.92
In the other straight CPU performance tests in Cinebench it shows a very slight advantage, though the improvements in single-threaded performance aren't as pronounced as with the FX-8350.
FX 6300 | by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)

FX 8320
1.05
FX 6300
1.07

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
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
XOP
SSE3
FMA3
SSE2
FMA4
F16C
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AES
SSE Family
FMA
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

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

bus

Clock speed 2,600 MHz 2,600 MHz

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 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclock popularity 63 82
Overclocked clock speed 4.65 GHz 4.78 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.82 GHz 4.83 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 9,317 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.65 GHz 4.78 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 6.68 pt/W 7.57 pt/W
Typical power consumption 101.56W 77.19W
AMD FX 8320
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 13 comments.
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.
and a good mobo and psu.
AMD should make it plainly known that there aren't truly 8 or 6 cores, they are logical processors, aka threads. apparently they abandoned "hyper-transport" (which tbh I thought was a pretty good name) and just went on to call them actual cores, which is misleading. each of these processors has half the number of "compute units" than it does logical processors, which infers that the number of compute units is the true number of cores.
thats what iv done, the 6300 is great for a good oc
Perosnally, I'm going with tthe 6300, with a good cooler to equal the price of the 8-core, overclocking i will be able to surpass the 8320
comments powered by Disqus