Winner
AMD FX 8320
CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8320 based on its .
See full details| | AMD FX 8320 vs 6300 |
| | Significantly more l2 cache 8 MB | | More cores 8 |
| | More threads 8 | | Better PassMark (Overclocked) score 9,317 |
| | Lower typical power consumption 77.19W | | More l3 cache per core 1.33 MB/core |
| | Better performance per dollar 6.54 pt/$ | | Lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year |
Overclockers take note! Two powerful processors from AMD are here! Both are from the FX series, but they’re essentially different: it’s a battle between an eight core versus a six core. Let’s compare the performance of the AMD FX 8320 versus the AMD FX 6300.
As for their similarities, they pack unlocked multipliers which are ideal for overclocking goodness. Moreover, they are capable of turbo boosting up to 4 GHz! Great features performance wise, but they don’t come with integrated graphics; so adjust your budget accordingly, because you’ll need to buy a discrete graphics card.
Taking a closer look at their distinctions, the 8320 is a 3.5 GHZ octa core with 8MB cache and consumes 125W TDP. In contrast is the 6300, which is similarly clocked at 3.5 GHz but only has six cores. It also comes with 8MB cache but consumes less power at 95W TDP. Considering that the 8320 has more cores, does it consequently mean that its faster overall?
Benchmarks reveal that indeed the 8320 is faster than the competition: at stock speeds, it’s more than 25% faster in PassMark, 25% better in 64-bit Geekbench, and 30% better in the Cinebench benchmarks. As for overclocking performance however, it’s quite surprising that the 6300 managed to score around 70% better results in the PassMark overclocked benchmark, which makes it as the undisputable champion when it comes to overclocking.
In conclusion, consider your needs before buying: if you’re a power user satisfied with stock settings, we recommend the AMD FX 8320. But if you’re an overclocker with an insatiable thirst for blazing speed, take a ride on the fast lane and overclock the AMD FX 6300.
AMD FX 8320CPUBoss Winner | | |
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
FX 6300 | by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)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.
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 | AMD FX 6300 |
| VS | |
| $110 | $230 | |
| AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i5 3570K | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $120 | |
| AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i3 4150 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $120 | |
| AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i3 4130 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $175 | |
| AMD FX 6300 vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $125 | |
| AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i3 3220 | ||
| VS | |
| $110 | $130 | |
| AMD FX 6300 vs 6350 | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $175 | |
| AMD FX 8320 vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $325 | $249 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | $161 | |
| Intel Core i3 3110M vs N3530 | ||
| VS | |
| $325 | $340 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| Intel Core i3 3217U vs Celeron N2830 | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | $97 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| AMD A10 5750M vs Intel Core i7 4700MQ | ||
| VS | |
| Samsung Exynos 5 Octa vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 | ||