Winner
AMD FX 8350
CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8350 based on its overclocking.
See full details AMD FX 8350 vs 6300 |
Released October, 2012
AMD FX 8350
- 4 GHz
- Octa core
- Unlocked
8.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 8350
 | Higher clock speed 4 GHz | | More l2 cache 8 MB |
| | Slightly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz | | More cores 8 |
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)It's impressive that AMD has managed to close the performance gap this much in the multi-threading stakes.
VS
Released October, 2012
AMD FX 6300
- 3.5 GHz
- Hexa core
- Unlocked
7.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the 6300
| | Much lower typical power consumption 77.19W | | Better performance per dollar 6.28 pt/$ |
| | Much lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year | | More l3 cache per core 1.33 MB/core |
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)It's not far off in terms of gaming, with our low-end Batman: AC scores showing 155fps for the FX-6300 versus 164FPS for the stock-clocked i5-3570K.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 8350 vs 6300
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| 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? | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
AMD FX 8350CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.5 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |||
| Slightly higher turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 4.1 GHz | Almost the same | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 6 | 2 more cores; run more applications at once | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 6 | 2 more threads | |||
| Better PassMark score | 9,134 | vs | 6,444 | More than 40% better PassMark score | |||
| Better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 10,147 | vs | 7,541 | Around 35% better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Better geekbench (64-bit) score | 12,105 | vs | 9,599 | More than 25% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 23,437 | vs | 16,213 | Around 45% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 6,880 | vs | 6,080 | Around 15% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Slightly better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,525 | vs | 1,446 | More than 5% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| |||||||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 77.19W | vs | 159.66W | 2.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Better performance per dollar | 6.28 pt/$ | vs | 4.84 pt/$ | Around 30% better performance per dollar | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | vs | 56.1 $/year | 2.5x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 1.33 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | Around 35% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | vs | 159.62 $/year | Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Better performance per watt | 7.93 pt/W | vs | 5.31 pt/W | Around 50% better performance per watt | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8350 vs 6300
GeekBench (32-bit)
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
Cinebench R11.5
FX 8350 | by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)In Cinebench the AMD chip is only a little over 5 per cent slower, and in X264 there's less than a single per cent difference between them.
Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)
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.
Passmark
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)Looking at the physics score we can see a difference of just under 900 points with the AMD FX-8350 taking the lead with 7325 3DMarks.
Passmark (Single Core)
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)Curious about real world scenarios, we decided to drop Furmark and ran 3DMark 11 on the performance preset and took the maximum power consumption during the first GPU test.
Reviews Word on the street
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | FX 8350 | vs | 6300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 4.2 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 | |||
| 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 | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1866 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 29,866.66 MB/s | 29,866.66 MB/s | |
details | FX 8350 | 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 | 709 | 82 | |
| Overclock review score | 0.95 | 0.8 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.74 GHz | 4.79 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.98 GHz | 4.84 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 10,147 | 7,541 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.74 GHz | 4.79 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 125W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 56.1 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 159.62 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 5.31 pt/W | 7.93 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 159.66W | 77.19W | |
bus | |||
| Clock speed | 2,600 MHz | 2,600 MHz | |
 AMD FX 8350  Report a correction |  AMD FX 6300 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $240 | $200 | |
| 4670K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $340 | $200 | |
| 4770K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $330 | $200 | |
| 3770K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $230 | $200 | |
| 3570K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $160 | $200 | |
| 8320 vs 8350 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | $120 | |
| 4130 vs 6300 | ||
| | VS | |
| $230 | $120 | |
| 3570K vs 6300 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS | |
| $340 | ||
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS | |
| $340 | $240 | |
| 4770K vs 4670K | ||
 | VS | |
| $332 | $340 | |
| 4820k vs 4770K | ||
| | VS | |
| $240 | $200 | |
| 4670K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $393 | $281 | |
| 4500U vs 4200U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| 4200U vs 3230M | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | $378 | |
| 4700MQ vs 4700HQ | ||
