AMD upgrade: fx-4300 4350 6300 or 6350 ?

gentlejax · Feb 27, 2014

working on rounding up parts to upgrade from my Phenom II x4 910.

Seems like every time I do a little reading I either find out they have a different cpu or I cant tell if its worth it to go from 4 to 6 core.

the prices are so close it makes most sense to get the fastest one possible.

its going to be a while since I still need to get a psu and ddr3 mem.

its not a gaming rig. just want the fastest possible every day rig for least money.

I play games on my playstation not this.

unknownofprob · Feb 27, 2014

since this is AMD going 6 cores can be simply compared to a Quad Core intel (No Argument please - this is simply comparing core/performance between suppliers. Not that the FX 6300 will compete with a Quad Core Intel, which it won't.). So in other words, don't go for a quad core AMD CPU.

From that, The FX 6300 is the best choice of CPU for you.

vmN · Feb 27, 2014

fx 6300. I wouldn't go woth 6350 and neither with 4xxx.

AnEwG · Feb 27, 2014

The FX-6300 or the FX-8320 would both be great upgrades from your current processor. FX-8320 is a better multithreader if you are into heavily multithreaded tasks like rendering.
I am sorry, I know that this is unrelated to the question by the original poster but I think there is no point in comparing the FX-6300 with a i5-3570k or i5-4670k, the fx chip has lower floating point performance (it has 6 128 bit FPU pipe lines with a symmetrical pair per each module that can combine into a 256 bit unit) While each of the four Haswell/IB cores has a 256 bit FPU. The architecture over all is also inferior to the Intel chips but then the 6 cores/3 modules AMD chip is not meant to compete with the i5 processors, it is meant to compete with Intel HT dual core i3 processors, which it usually beats in multithreading and loses to in single threaded performance.

palladin9479 · Feb 27, 2014

About the 6300 vs the 6350. They are the same CPU only the 6350's are the higher quality binned parts. They will overclock higher and use less power (for the same clock) on average then the 6300. If the price difference is only 10~15$ USD then it's often worth going for the 6350 as you'll get better single core performance and higher OC for minimal extra money.

logainofhades · Feb 27, 2014

Actually, the average overclock for the FX 6300 is higher than that of the FX 6350. I am not paying AMD to change the multiplier from 17.5 to 19.5 for me, either.

4793 for the 6300
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/fx_6300/

4609 for the 6350
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/fx_6350/

Wisecracker · Feb 27, 2014

FX-4300 (it's been as low as $80 with promo code recently) with an SSD (can't be beat for general 'snappiness' and response in typical usage)

In fact, an SSD could likely turn that PhII 910 into a high flyer

palladin9479 · Feb 27, 2014

logainofhades :

yeah .. no.

Those are user submitted results. And your not paying AMD to change the multiplier, they are binned CPU's of the exact same die. Ones that pass QA get stamped 6350, ones that fail but only by a little get stamped 6300. Doesn't stop the occasional consumer from getting lucky and getting a golden 6300, the exception proves the rule. OC is limited by cooling and the 6300 will consume more power then the 6350 at the same speed, unless you get lucky with samples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning

It's a numbers game with averages.

Ok did some digging of actual overclocks and not ones with disabled cores. FX-6300 gets to about 4.1/4.2Ghz before hitting a wall where you need significant power jumps and cooling. FX-6350 hits that wall about 4.4/4.5Ghz.

So again, binning is about quality. Higher binned parts will be, on average, higher quality then lower binned parts due to the lower parts failing part of the QA process.

gentlejax · Feb 27, 2014

Wisecracker :

I have also almost picked up a ssd drive in prep too...good deals popping up for 120gig. only thing stopping me is I have 3 500+ gig hard drives I am not using. plan on getting a ssd for main OS and using my 500 gig velociraptor for storage as its new. I still have 3 unused hard drives

AnEwG · Feb 27, 2014

I think I have read somewhere else as well about how that the FX-6300 achieves higher clocks than the FX-6350 on air cooling.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6350-vs-AMD-FX-6300
Also from the product binning article on Wikipedia, here is this quote: "As manufacturers only require meeting the minimum advertised specifications, the potential for overclocking of a product is not typically tested during the binning process.[5] Therefore, it should not be assumed that higher-rated products will overclock better than lower-rated ones."

palladin9479 · Feb 27, 2014

Another point about binning. FX6000, 6350, 8320, and 8350 are all the exact same die. FX6xxx are chips that a module has failed QA testing and been disabled. Motherboards exist that allow you to reenable those disabled cores, so why are we "paying AMD to enable our cores for us"? Exact same logic applies.

logainofhades · Feb 27, 2014

I haven't heard of FX cores being disabled that can be enabled. I haven't heard of anything like that since Phenom II.

AnEwG · Feb 27, 2014

You can't enable the disabled cores on an FX series chip.

logainofhades · Feb 27, 2014

AnEwG :

I didn't think so either.

palladin9479 · Feb 27, 2014

logainofhades :

Of course you can't do it on BD platforms, I worded it poorly. I mean amongst some CPU's there exists boards that allow you to reenable locked cores, mostly the Phenom II's. You weren't paying AMD to unlock your Zosma or Heca, you where paying for a CPU guaranteed to pass QA. The exact same thing applies here, the FX6350 has passed QA to run 3.9Ghz/4.2 at 125W, and those that can't are branded FX6300 to run at 3.5/4.1 at 95W. Occasionally you'll get lucky and get a 6300 that can run better, and you'll get unlucky and get a 6350 that only runs at minimum from QA. It's about probabilities, your more likely to get higher on a 6350 then you would on a 6300. You see the same thing with 8300 vs 8350.

Now if there is a large price discrepancy then it may not be worth it to get the higher quality chip as it may have less value. In this case the 6300 is $120 USD while the 6350 is $130 USD, that is $10 USD difference for a higher quality chip. So unless you specifically need the 95W TDP window, it may make more sense to get the 6350.

logainofhades · Feb 27, 2014

Any FX 6300 can easily run at FX 6350 speeds with a simple multiplier bump as long as the board is a 125w capable one. Same goes for the FX 8320 vs the 8350. I have one FX 8320 running at FX 8350 speeds now and will have a second once I can get a better cooler for it. I don't like the stock one.

palladin9479 · Feb 27, 2014

logainofhades :

Yes but not in the same power envelope. QA testing is seeing if it will run at the required voltages, speed and heat envelope. If it doesn't then it's branded a FX6000. Anything you can do to the 6300 you can do to the 6350 which will have a higher ceiling due to it being a higher binned chip.

Seriously, not all dies are created equal. Binning exists for a reason. FX6350's are just higher quality FX6300's. Whether that quality is worth the extra cost or not is up to the user, when it was a $20 USD difference it wasn't really worth it but now that it's a $10 USD difference that changes. 10$ USD for a 400 Mhz guaranteed increase, and a ~200Mhz higher headroom in OC before slamming into the power wall.

As an example I have a 8350 running at 4.7Ghz in a quiet WC loop. I've had it as high as 5.0Ghz but that required a significant amount of extra power that would in turn require the fans to be spinning more, so I kept it at 4.7Ghz for the quieter experience. 4.5Ghz is the power wall for the binned 8350s with anything higher then 4.7 requiring very large power jumps.

Wisecracker · Feb 27, 2014

I have also almost picked up a ssd drive in prep too...good deals popping up for 120gig. only thing stopping me is I have 3 500+ gig hard drives I am not using. plan on getting a ssd for main OS and using my 500 gig velociraptor for storage as its new. I still have 3 unused hard drives

I smell a RAID

Presumably, one or two are older drives and likely not very dependable in the long run. It might be interesting to RAID the drives and compare their performance with the Velo. The faster 'one' could be used for daily storage needs -- the other(s) for critical system backups (mirror your OS and storage drives periodically and put 'em in a good safe place in the event of a system meltdown)

You could over-write them a half-dozen times and sell them for some quick cash; OR, simply beat 'em into a gazillion pieces with a sledge hammer (if you are concerned with personal info).

The bottom line is ... for general overall system performance you just can't beat an SSD over an HDD and all other system components. Win8 boot times are :ouch:

The Samsung Evo SSD line comes with a really neat, easy and dependable data migration tool, too ... and 120GB models have hit $80 from time-to-time.

AnEwG · Feb 27, 2014

Saying that the FX-6350 are the better quality FX-6300 that could be clocked higher would have made more sense if the FX-6300 was released after or at least at the same time as the FX-6350. That was the case with the phenom ii X2 and X3 processors that had locked cores. What I think which is not necessarily correct, is that they overclocked the chip just because they didn't have anything new in their line up to compete against Intel's Haswell chips which were about to be released at that time.

palladin9479 · Feb 27, 2014

AnEwG :

This makes no sense and is just you making assumptions & opinion into fact. Process's are periodically refreshed as yields improve. The fx6350 is just a binned chip, end of story. Binning isn't new, it's been around for decades now. The yields go to a point where enough of them were high quality chips to rank their own model number. Intel does this too.

AnEwG · Feb 27, 2014

I never said it is a fact actually, I pointed out that it could be an incorrect assumption. And in fact I think it makes sense. You used the Phenoms with locked cores as an example but the Heka and Callisto chips were either released at the same time or after the Deneb chips they were based on. As the yields improved the lower chips with defective Silicon/lower yields gradually decreased and some even ended up disappearing from the pricing list all together. The Phenom II X4 980BE is a higher clocked P II X4 940 that was released more than two years after the 940, it had the same TDP (at least officially) and a 700 MHz higher clock, so maybe you've got a point after all but I don't think this is the case with the FX-6350 though.
What I am sure of is that I have yet to see a single review that proves that the FX-6350 can achieve an average overclock higher than the FX-6300 on air cooling (Being the binned chip and all). You also ignored the quote I used from the same article you linked too which clearly states that the higher model is not necessarily a better overclocker and unless you have access to data that proves that a FX-6350 consumes less power at the same clock when compared to a FX-6300 then you are also making assumptions and opinions into facts when speaking about power envelopes.

Kakkarot · Aug 9, 2014

As all articles around shows that Intel whoops amd... its cause per core performance. You can tell that 6 cores of 6300 gives more power as u have background tasks... well its almost true... cause games do not use 4 cores, they are STILL 2 cores demanding at best. Thats why 2 core intel wins with more powerfull 4/6 core AMD... Cause more cores not equal more FPS. Keep in mind that "turbo" works only IF your processor is cool enough so base frequency is realy important.
GO look for comparision of amd and intel (like Pentium G3240/G3420) and see how much these extra cores give an edge to amd... (http://pclab.pl/art51843-4.html)

If You are a Geek who intend to test limits of ones computer with help of water cooling/fans that make huge noice sure go for 6300 as it can be overclocked to almost same speed as overclocked cores of 4300 and so power in games will be slightly better and in other areas 6 cores will rock.
But if You are a standard John Smith who wants to have a nice computer for games that is for fun not tests... basicly stock from head to toes... go for 4300 if its much cheaper and for 6300 if its price is realy close. Otherwise pfs/buck wont make up for extra cash that You could exchange for better GPU/mainboard/RAM/SSD.

AMD upgrade: fx-4300 4350 6300 or 6350 ?

Distinguished

Illustrious

Honorable

Honorable

Splendid

Titan

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Honorable

Splendid

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Splendid

Titan

Splendid

Splendid

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Reputable

Share this page