CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 965 vs 6300 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

5.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD Phenom II X4 965 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD Phenom II X4 965  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 Phenom II X4 965

Reasons to consider the
AMD Phenom II X4 965

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Phenom II X4 965 vs the FX 6300.

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 FX 6300 vs the Phenom II X4 965.

Benchmarks Real world tests of Phenom II X4 965 vs FX 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

Phenom II X4 965
137,800 MB/s
FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Reviews Word on the street

Phenom II X4 965  vs FX 6300 

7.0
8.0
That said you don't really need to have an overclocking mobo to push the Core i5 up over 4.5GHz and gaming performance will quickly outstrip the AMD chip.
FX 6300

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Phenom II X4 965  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 0 GHz 4.1 GHz
Cores Quad core Hexa core
Socket type
AM3
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
3DNow!
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

bus

Clock speed 2,000 MHz 2,600 MHz

details

Phenom II X4 965  vs
FX 6300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 6
L2 cache 2 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 758,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 17 20
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.43V 0.8 - 1.43V
Operating temperature Unknown - 62°C Unknown - 62.5°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 22 82
Overclock review score 5 0.8
Overclocked clock speed 4.05 GHz 4.76 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.21 GHz 4.81 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 3,136.7 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.05 GHz 4.76 GHz

power consumption

TDP 140W 95W
Annual home energy cost 54.06 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 152.42 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 1.08 pt/W 9.86 pt/W
Typical power consumption 152.93W 77.19W
AMD Phenom II X4 965
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 13 comments.
you're a special one huh devon??
my friends new i5 cost 200. Try being less triggered
No shit fuckstick. The FX costs $80 and the intel costs $400. Who do you think is going to run better.
I agree with you there. I wouldn't recommend AMD until their Zen like gets released.I replaced my FX 6300 with a Intel Core i7 4790K and the difference was phenomenal.
the FX 8xxxs are actual 8 core cpus, they just share modules (resources) same with the 6 and 4 core lines.
^ this. i'm running an OCed phenom ii 830 at 3.7 Ghz with an evo 212 right now. Yes, it's a tad slower than my old fx-6300 but since i'm not gaming atm it's not really a big deal. Shadow of Mordor runs at about 40-50 fps on ubuntu 14.04 with my gtx 760 on medium settings. not bad for a chip from 2009.
exactly, there is no windows 7 sp2. When i had the fx-6300 it ran fine with windows 7, ubuntu 12.04 - 14.04. Every game i had ran fine, including a highly modded skyrim. Hard to recommend the FX line in 2016 though .... just go intel now, nothing worthy from AMD until 2017 (maybe, if it doesn't get scrapped)
I've used this the FX 6300 with Windows XP, Vista, And Windows 7. And When did Windows 7 ever get a Service Pack 2?Any OS I've used that chip on ran perfectly fine, no issues whatsoever.
FX chips are not compatible with Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows VISTA and Windows 7 Service Pack 1.. Windows 7 with Service Pack 2 will support the FX chip correctly.. I don't have Windows 7 nor any newer version of Windows. I have 64 bit Vista Enterprise, Windows XP PRO and 64 bit Fedora Core 14 Linux. By-the-way Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 run on the same kernel and engine as Windows Vista, The only difference is the GUI ( Graphical User Interface) and them having microcode fixes for newer CPU's.. As for the Older Operating system, the OS will run kind of OK but a lot of the third party software won't work, like Comodo Internet Security, Firefox, Skyrim, VirtuaGirl HD, Google Chrome, Nero Burning ROM 9, Blackberry Link etc,etc... I found this out the hard way after spending $224 on a boxed FX 8370e.. I sent this chip back to AMD believing that it was defective and I received a new chip that did the same thing on 3 different AM3+ motherboards... When it comes time to buy a new system, I'm getting an Intel because I am done with AMD if they are going to keep making garbage FX chips..
Hi. Saying that: "If you run Windows 2000 up to Windows 7, stay away from the FX chips because they are not compatible with older Operating Systems" did you mean includin Win 7 or Win XP and older OS?
Yeah, Whatever.. My experience with FX chips is very disappointing. The may look good on paper but in reality they are garbage... If you run Windows 2000 up to Windows 7, stay away from the FX chips because they are not compatible with older Operating Systems. I found this out the hard way. But anyway, There is a few errors on this page that needs to be corrected as well as all the pages on Phenom II CPU's .. All Phenom II CPU's Support The AMD-V and AMD64 instruction sets.. I, myself have one of these Phenom II 965BE running at 3.8GHz rock sold on an old Asrock Alivedual-esata2 with HD5850 and 16GB of dirt cheap generic DDR2-800 memory. It runs just as fast as the FX-8370e without all the software crash's from OS incompatibilities. I don't know what happened to AMD but it seems that everything they have made from 2011 and up is just disappointing when it comes to compatibility and stability as well as performance. If AMD had any common sense, they would have made an 8 core version of the Phenom II instead of trying to copy Intel with the two threads per core design. That's right, 8 core FX chips are nothing more than a 4 core CPU that can run 2 threads on each core which would be nowhere near the performance of a Phenom II 8 core CPU if AMD ever made one..
My 965 BE runs on a M4A89TD Pro mobo at 4.5 Ghz stable all the time. I can take it up to 4.7 Ghz but do not want to stress it that much :) It is water based cooling. 8 Gb Ram @ 1333 Mhz. With two 6850 xfire OC both @ 16x I can run BF4 on 3 monitors x 1080 @ 90% of resolution for good frame rate in multiplayer. No problem on campaign at full resolution. FC3 @ 4800 * 900 with medium settings in campaign mode.
Lest we forget that phenom is old enough to be called fx grandfather
comments powered by Disqus