Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

From Phenom II X6 1045T to FX-6300?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • FX
  • Phenom
  • AMD
  • Configuration
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 9, 2014 7:04:15 AM

Hello there,

I have this configuration right now:
gbyte 990XA-UD3
Phenom II X6 1045T (non-black edition, locked) 2,7 GHz, 3,2 GHz turbo with 3 cores
4 GB DDR3 ram
R9 270x Toxic 2 GB
Chieftec CTG-550-80p

I know already that I should buy more memory, as it is getting a bottleneck for nowadays in gaming, for example. Also, I'm well aware that I should buy an Intel CPU, but changing mobo and CPU and buying rams are well out of my reach. I tried to research it, but couldn't decide whether or not an FX6300 worths the relatively small investment over this base clocked Phenom? I mean especially for gaming. (Note: though I know it doesn't really pays off, but the rams would be capable of running in 1600MHz, but due to the CPU they only run in 1333 MHz, but maybe I'm missing something? As far as I'm concerned the FX6300 is supporting rams up to 1866 MHz) I play several kind of stuff, and some of the not-so-well optimized cpu/ram heavy titles like Dead Rising 3 kill the computer. It's not like I couldn't live without DR3 but I guess this will be more and more usual even in the near future. Thanks for help in advance!

More about : phenom 1045t 6300

a b à CPUs
October 9, 2014 7:09:03 AM

Yes, it would be a definite improvement: faster base/turbo clocks, more L2/L3 cache, higher clock speed, & the potential to overclock it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2014 7:16:01 AM

powerload said:
Hello there,

I have this configuration right now:
gbyte 990XA-UD3
Phenom II X6 1045T (non-black edition, locked) 2,7 GHz, 3,2 GHz turbo with 3 cores
4 GB DDR3 ram
R9 270x Toxic 2 GB
Chieftec CTG-550-80p

I know already that I should buy more memory, as it is getting a bottleneck for nowadays in gaming, for example. Also, I'm well aware that I should buy an Intel CPU, but changing mobo and CPU and buying rams are well out of my reach. I tried to research it, but couldn't decide whether or not an FX6300 worths the relatively small investment over this base clocked Phenom? I mean especially for gaming. (Note: though I know it doesn't really pays off, but the rams would be capable of running in 1600MHz, but due to the CPU they only run in 1333 MHz, but maybe I'm missing something? As far as I'm concerned the FX6300 is supporting rams up to 1866 MHz) I play several kind of stuff, and some of the not-so-well optimized cpu/ram heavy titles like Dead Rising 3 kill the computer. It's not like I couldn't live without DR3 but I guess this will be more and more usual even in the near future. Thanks for help in advance!


I went from a 1055T overclocked to 3800 MHz to a 6300 at 4200 Mhz. Same board too! It was a good upgrade.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 9, 2014 7:17:32 AM

Stock vs. stock you current CPU is better as it's real 6 cores instead of 6 modules crap or whatever bulldozer is.
Even when overclocked (both) you'd need at least 1GHz gap between the CPUs to get more raw performance from fx6300. In some games the newer CPUs are better (up to ~20%), thought.
It's up to you to decide if that is worth the upgrade. I had an OC'ed 1055T before going for i7 because even the 8350 was a negligible upgrade.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2014 7:41:38 AM

rmpumper said:
Stock vs. stock you current CPU is better as it's real 6 cores instead of 6 modules crap or whatever bulldozer is.
Even when overclocked (both) you'd need at least 1GHz gap between the CPUs to get more raw performance from fx6300. In some games the newer CPUs are better (up to ~20%), thought.
It's up to you to decide if that is worth the upgrade. I had an OC'ed 1055T before going for i7 because even the 8350 was a negligible upgrade.


You have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever used them side by side? You need 1 GHz gap between a 6300 and a 1045T? Lol. You obviously haven't owned them both like I do. I have an 1100T clocked to 4.2 GHz and my 6300 at 4.4 GHz and it performs every task I do quicker than the 1100T.
m
0
l
a c 165 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 9, 2014 7:48:22 AM

I would save more money and go Intel like you said. The AMD FX chips are old tech already now to be honest.
m
0
l
October 9, 2014 9:29:59 AM

bmacsys said:
rmpumper said:
Stock vs. stock you current CPU is better as it's real 6 cores instead of 6 modules crap or whatever bulldozer is.
Even when overclocked (both) you'd need at least 1GHz gap between the CPUs to get more raw performance from fx6300. In some games the newer CPUs are better (up to ~20%), thought.
It's up to you to decide if that is worth the upgrade. I had an OC'ed 1055T before going for i7 because even the 8350 was a negligible upgrade.


You have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever used them side by side? You need 1 GHz gap between a 6300 and a 1045T? Lol. You obviously haven't owned them both like I do. I have an 1100T clocked to 4.2 GHz and my 6300 at 4.4 GHz and it performs every task I do quicker than the 1100T.


Good for you. I'll stick to real benchmarks instead of someones opinion, thanks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2014 5:21:43 AM

rmpumper said:
bmacsys said:
rmpumper said:
Stock vs. stock you current CPU is better as it's real 6 cores instead of 6 modules crap or whatever bulldozer is.
Even when overclocked (both) you'd need at least 1GHz gap between the CPUs to get more raw performance from fx6300. In some games the newer CPUs are better (up to ~20%), thought.
It's up to you to decide if that is worth the upgrade. I had an OC'ed 1055T before going for i7 because even the 8350 was a negligible upgrade.


You have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever used them side by side? You need 1 GHz gap between a 6300 and a 1045T? Lol. You obviously haven't owned them both like I do. I have an 1100T clocked to 4.2 GHz and my 6300 at 4.4 GHz and it performs every task I do quicker than the 1100T.


Good for you. I'll stick to real benchmarks instead of someones opinion, thanks.


In other words. "I have owned nor used either". And on top of that benchmarks tell a different story. You lost all credibility stating the 6300 had to be clocked a full GHz higher for equal performance. When the ipc of the two processors is nearly identical. Add to the fact the 6300 will easily clock to at least 4.4 GHz with pedestrian cooling.
m
0
l
October 10, 2014 9:32:17 AM

bmacsys said:
rmpumper said:
bmacsys said:
rmpumper said:
Stock vs. stock you current CPU is better as it's real 6 cores instead of 6 modules crap or whatever bulldozer is.
Even when overclocked (both) you'd need at least 1GHz gap between the CPUs to get more raw performance from fx6300. In some games the newer CPUs are better (up to ~20%), thought.
It's up to you to decide if that is worth the upgrade. I had an OC'ed 1055T before going for i7 because even the 8350 was a negligible upgrade.


You have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever used them side by side? You need 1 GHz gap between a 6300 and a 1045T? Lol. You obviously haven't owned them both like I do. I have an 1100T clocked to 4.2 GHz and my 6300 at 4.4 GHz and it performs every task I do quicker than the 1100T.


Good for you. I'll stick to real benchmarks instead of someones opinion, thanks.


In other words. "I have owned nor used either". And on top of that benchmarks tell a different story. You lost all credibility stating the 6300 had to be clocked a full GHz higher for equal performance. When the ipc of the two processors is nearly identical. Add to the fact the 6300 will easily clock to at least 4.4 GHz with pedestrian cooling.


1045T at 4GHz vs. 6300 at 4.7GHz (from here.

Some games:
Asscreed: 1045T 51.2fps, 6300 48.2fps
Arma2: 1045T 20.5fps, 6300 21.5fps
BF3: 1045T 57.2fps, 6300 58.4fps
Crysis2: 1045T 71.8fps. 6300 86.3fps
Civ5: 1045T 40.4fps, 6300 39.1fps
Dirt4: 1045T 96.7fps, 6300 65.4fps
blah blah blah

Multi threaded apps:
3dsmax: 1045T 159sec, 6300 186sec
7zip: 1045T 71sec, 6300 80sec
AfterEffects: 1045T 74sec, 6300 61.5sec
Cinebench: 1045T 7.13points, 6300 6.05points
x264: 1045T 34.7sec, 6300 36sec
blah blah blah

Conclusion: 6300 from 1045T is at best not a downgrade if you are using your for PC for apps where FX is better than Phenom AND IF you overclock it to the max.

Feel free to STFU now.
m
0
l
October 12, 2014 12:50:04 PM

Well, thanks for the answers :) 
@rmpumper I find it interesting, and I would never doubt my cpu would do just fine on 4 GHz clock. But I'm also quite sure, that since it's locked, I can only increase north bridge frequency almost by 50% to achieve that, and my whole room would burn down to ashes, even with some fancy cooling. (I have stock atm)
At the same time, reaching 4,7 from 3,5 with unlocked cores seems more realistic to me, though it's a higher rate, it's less drastic increase compared to 4 from 2,7.
It would be nice to not to spend money on it now, if I had some nice OC headroom. I don't really have any idea on how to OC, I never tried it myself, but what I've learned from google so far is that it isn't that simple to do with this kind of CPU
m
0
l
!