CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 9590 vs 6300 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

FX 9590
8.1
FX 6300
6.0
FX 8350
7.3
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

FX 9590
6.6
FX 6300
5.5
FX 8350
5.9
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

FX 9590
0.0
FX 6300
0.0
FX 8350
0.0
Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

FX 9590
0.0
FX 6300
0.0
FX 8350
0.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

FX 9590
5.1
FX 6300
5.9
FX 8350
5.6
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 9590
6.0
FX 6300
6.9
FX 8350
6.3
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

5.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

FX 9590
5.6
FX 6300
5.7
FX 8350
5.6

Winner
AMD FX 9590 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 9590  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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 9590

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 9590

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 9590 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 9590.

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 9590 vs 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
13,818
FX 6300
7,871

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
2,549
FX 6300
2,053

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s
FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
12,725
FX 6300
7,447

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
13,802
FX 6300
8,232

GeekBench

FX 9590
13,802
FX 6300
9,503

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 9590
10,589
FX 6300
6,444

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,739
FX 6300
1,446

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

FX 9590  vs
6300 
Clock speed 4.7 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 5 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

details

FX 9590  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 25 20
Voltage range 1.91 - 2V 0.8 - 1.43V
Operating temperature Unknown - 57°C Unknown - 62.5°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 5.08 GHz 4.76 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.04 GHz 4.82 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 10,860 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.08 GHz 4.76 GHz

power consumption

TDP 220W 95W
Annual home energy cost 53 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 192.72 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 5.39 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 178.75W 77.19W

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
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 4 comments.
Well I`ll just stick with the 6300 due to power use, seriously AMD needs to try and reduce power consumption
That is too much heat and power consumption for me to try and deal with I would rather use the fx6300.
I run an FX-6300 with a cheap MSI 970a-g43 mobo. Overclocked (not turbo core) to a steady 4ghz, 8 gigs ram OC'd to 2133mhz, running an amd 7870 asus graphics card. I have not found a single game that wont run at ultra settings on this computer at 1080p. Advanced warfare, dead rising 3, BF4, grid autosport etc... It cost me about 500 bucks to build. Same price as an Xbox one and it completely smokes it. ( Bought graphics card used for 100 bucks ) I have seen intel based systems completely choke on games. Yeah they can do word faster (who gives a crap) but for cheap reliable gaming, go AMD the whole way. By the way if you want the 6300 chip overclocks WAY better than the 8000 series chips, and will perform just as well almost. Good chip good price, I run stock cooler and idle 27 degrees, under heavy heavy load no higher than 55 and that is overclocked. Intel can suck it or lower their prices. Alot of sites advocate intel as a better processor, and I am sure bench marking software is written in a way to give out higher scores to whoever pays more. Save your money everyone. Get a good AMD processor, pair it with a decent AMD graphics card and laugh every time you see your bank account isnt empty. Nuff said.
i all go with fx 6300 because it consumes less power all you cocksuckers
comments powered by Disqus