Cant choose between the fx6100 and 6300

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
V

Virginity

Commendable
Oct 23, 2016
8
0
1,510
So, i have narrowed my searches down to these 2 CPUs Fx 6100 and the Fx 6300, ive looked at benchmarks and ive seen only a 5-10 fps difference
And ive also ordered an aftermarket 1050 from gigabyte ( non ti)
Aswell as equipped myself with 7gbs of ddr3
So i want you to help me decide between these 2 CPUs

Which would fit best with the 1050?
Is it worth to pay 20euros more for the 6300 and get an average of 5-10 fps?
Will it do well in video/photo editing?
IS IT WORTH IT?
P.S im on a tight budget and those 20 euros could be used in other parts of the pc, but can be spent on the 6300 if its worth it
P.S I do not care about the power consumption
 
Solution
Ecky
AMD's first-generation construction core architecture, Bulldozer (FX-41xx, FX-61xx and FX-81xx) was released in 2011 and was very poorly received, because in almost every way it was a regression in performance when compared with the Phenom II CPUs (released in 2008) it replaced. AMD designed these chips to have lower performance per clock in exchange for being able to clock higher, but they never hit AMD's target clockspeeds and so just performed lower. They were also designed to share core resources so they could have more cores with the same die space (e.g. on an FX-6100, if you load up more than 3 cores, all of the cores run slower). This hurt per-core performance even more. Power consumption (which you don't mind) was also way...
Sort by date Sort by votes
maxalge

maxalge

Champion
Ambassador
May 31, 2012
13,373
4
56,960


are you upgrading an old setup you already have?


buying a fx setup new is not a smart move



the 6100 is terrible

the 6300 is very much superior
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Ecky

Ecky

Illustrious
Feb 3, 2013
7,592
2
38,960
AMD's first-generation construction core architecture, Bulldozer (FX-41xx, FX-61xx and FX-81xx) was released in 2011 and was very poorly received, because in almost every way it was a regression in performance when compared with the Phenom II CPUs (released in 2008) it replaced. AMD designed these chips to have lower performance per clock in exchange for being able to clock higher, but they never hit AMD's target clockspeeds and so just performed lower. They were also designed to share core resources so they could have more cores with the same die space (e.g. on an FX-6100, if you load up more than 3 cores, all of the cores run slower). This hurt per-core performance even more. Power consumption (which you don't mind) was also way higher than expected. All around, the first generation FX chips were awful compared with anything else you could get at the time.

The second generation chips, Piledriver (FX-43xx, FX-63xx and FX-83xx) were a large improvement over the first generation. They were still largely considered to be poor choices when released in 2012, but at the very least were not slower and less efficient than the chips AMD was selling 4 years earlier.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom