AMD FX 8320 vs 6300

older Released October, 2012

AMD FX 8320

3.5 GHz
Octa core
Unlocked

older Released October, 2012

AMD FX 6300

3.5 GHz
Hexa core
Unlocked

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.

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

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.

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.

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

summary	FX 8320	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	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

AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i5 3570K

Comments

Showing 25 comments.

Moster Fresby (02:12 AM, April 9, 2017)

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!)

Moster Fresby (05:27 AM, May 14, 2016)

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...

Viking2121 (12:57 AM, March 2, 2016)

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?

AJPinto (04:39 PM, January 7, 2016)

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.

Kevin Jamien (05:42 PM, December 4, 2015)

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.

Nick Trunzo (12:17 AM, August 23, 2015)

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.

Steve Bike (07:00 AM, August 17, 2015)

Doubt it.

ailouros1982 . (12:15 PM, June 7, 2015)

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!!

URBAN303 (12:32 PM, June 6, 2015)

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

Alen Nedamdalje (06:22 PM, May 29, 2015)

Which one will go better with my graphic card? AMD R9 270 DD XFX 2GB Edition

Fenrir007 (11:56 PM, April 11, 2015)

Its so funny to see nerds complaining about people arguing about CPUs and GPUs... Go get a girlfriend for god's sake! LOL XD

Ol' Billy Red Balls (02:22 AM, April 6, 2015)

[insert generic, lonely, loser, virgin comment]

gorevomit (01:28 PM, March 7, 2015)

Yes but FX 6300 and i5 isn't the same. FX have six cores but logical, intel have four cores physical.

ICameForAGoodPCOnly (07:35 PM, January 18, 2015)

Its so funny to see nerds arguing about CPUs and GPUs... Go get a girlfriend for god's sake! LOL XD

ailouros1982 . (06:04 PM, December 5, 2014)

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!

Guest (05:40 PM, December 5, 2014)

All AMD proccessors are quad-triple-dual core with somekind of hypertheading but on hardware level..

Hayden (12:52 PM, August 28, 2014)

Wrong again, 8 cores, 2 per module.

Hayden (12:51 PM, August 28, 2014)

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.

Panos Papadopoulos (05:46 PM, July 31, 2014)

yeah but how is it better when it uses all hes cores?

Miha (08:51 AM, July 23, 2014)

*All AMD processors are quad-triple-dual MODULE,not core ;) Every module has 2 cores.Module is NOT the same as core.

danmmang (09:38 PM, July 10, 2014)

They have 8 REAL cores they just share resources

Bloodrain (01:28 AM, June 7, 2014)

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.

Thomas Seggons (08:25 AM, May 29, 2014)

No, it is octa core.

hexman (07:35 PM, April 18, 2014)

Read the box your 8320 came in before you make corrections.

DD61 (02:02 AM, April 18, 2014)

I own the FX 8320 for a couple weeks now .. It's a solid CPU , but it's a quad core , not octa core.

	VS
$100		$184
AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i5 3570K

	VS
$100		$125
AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i3 6100

	VS
$100		$128
AMD FX 6300 vs 8350

	VS
$100		$75
AMD FX 6300 vs Athlon X4 860K

	VS
$100		$170
AMD FX 6300 vs 8300

	VS
$100		$190
AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i5 4460

	VS
$100		$200
AMD FX 6300 vs Phenom II X4 965

	VS
$305		$300
Intel Xeon W3520 vs Core i5 2500

	VS
$272		$350
Intel Core i7 4790K vs 6700K

	VS
$281
Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410

	VS
$281
Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410

	VS
$275		$161
Intel Core i3 4005U vs Pentium N3540

	VS
$248		$230
Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590

	VS
$134		$225
Intel Celeron 847 vs Core i3 3217U

AMD FX 8320 vs 6300

AMD FX 8320

AMD FX 6300

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

AMD FX 8320

AMD FX 6300

Differences What are the advantages of each

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8320 vs 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

features

integrated graphics

memory controller

details

overclocking

power consumption

bus

Desktops

Follow us

Compare

Popular Comparisons

Read more

AMD FX 8320 vs 8350

AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i5 3570K

Comments

features

information

on the web

AMD FX 8320 vs 6300

AMD FX 8320

AMD FX 6300

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

AMD FX 8320

AMD FX 6300

Differences What are the advantages of each

Reasons to consider the AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the AMD FX 6300

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8320 vs 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

features

integrated graphics

memory controller

details

overclocking

power consumption

bus

Desktops

Follow us

Compare

Related Comparisons

Popular Comparisons

Read more

AMD FX 8320 vs 8350

AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i5 3570K

Comments

features

information

on the web

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8320

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300