AMD FX 6300

[Mithrandir]

Hi guys,

I think of buying a new CPU. My present CPU is the Phenom x4 840 ( ). With my Radeon HD 7870 Sapphire OC Edition I get in DCS only 12-24 FPS. So I´m considering to buy a new one.

Because i have a 95 Watt Motherboard ( for AMD´s) the 6300 is my favourite choice ´til now.

So my question is :

Does anybody have experience with the 6300 ?

Thx

[porky_pig]

You are better off buying the cheapest intel chip and motherboard out there before buying anything made AMD.

[Mithrandir]

Well thanks for your quick reply.

My problem is I have the Asus M5A78l m-le motherboard.

Anyway the 6300 is quite decent is suppose.

[karambiatos]

You are better off buying the cheapest intel chip and motherboard out there before buying anything made AMD.

oh come on!

 

slightly biased?

 

they are pretty good, but if you are going to use them for gaming then you are better off with intels w/e bridge is the newest nowadays, like the

i7-3770k or not k or i5-3570k or not k.

 

though it will be more expensive since youd need a new motherboard, and a new cooler because the stock coolers intel provides you with are terrible

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,1.html

 

look at it here, see how you feel about it.

Edited April 6, 2013 by karambiatos

[SkateZilla]

TBH, your CPU is the bottleneck, it's the first Generation Phenom, and it's slow.

[EtherealN]

840 should be a Phenom II. Most likely still a bottleneck ofc (didn't the original Phenoms use another socket as well), but reduces the gains from the upgrade. Unfortunately a quick look through my most commonly read tech sites didn't allow me to find any good comparative studies of the FX6300 vs the Phenom II's. :(

[Mithrandir]

Thanks to all for the quick reply.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96563 <-- According to him ( lossless framerates at highest settings ) I ordered finally the fx 6300.

I found a few tests. (e.g. http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-8320-CPU-256470/Tests/Test-FX-8320-FX-6300-FX-4300-Vishera-1032556/

<-- german

It seems the fx 6300 is even better refering to gaming than the fx 8150, so I thought let´s give it a try. I´ll tell you how it works.

Until then happy flying.

[EtherealN]

It seems the fx 6300 is even better refering to gaming than the fx 8150, so I thought let´s give it a try. I´ll tell you how it works.

 

Definitely should be. The "old" FXes were pretty bad (relatively speaking) for games, often performing worse than Phenom II's in games. Piledriver introduced a lot of optimizations though, which should help. It's still being held back by the underlying architecture though, but since you in your case can do the upgrade without a complete replacement of the system, this helps in the decision of course.

 

For a completely new system, Intel would still win easily, but the upgrade path can definitely be a different matter.

[schroedi]

The Phenom II x4 840 isn't a Phenom, it's an Athlon II named Phenom.

In comparison to a "real" Phenom II this one lacks the Level 3 Cache which is the only difference between the Athlon and Phenom.

[EtherealN]

The Phenom II x4 840 isn't a Phenom, it's an Athlon II named Phenom.

In comparison to a "real" Phenom II this one lacks the Level 3 Cache which is the only difference between the Athlon and Phenom.

 

Huh?

 

"Phenom" and "Athlon" are marketing names, they have nothing to do with the silicon itself, so saying a Phenom II isn't a Phenom II is like saying an i7 isn't an i7.

 

What you mean is that it is a Deneb minus the L3.

 

"Phenom" encompasses Agena and Toliman. The Athlon name was kept for Kuma. Phenom II was introduced with Thuban, kept in Zosma, Deneb, Propus, Heka, Callisto, Regor. Then there were "Athlon"-branded processors released based on the same Zosma as was previously Phenom II's as well as several derivative.

 

Never rely on the marketing names. It's the silicon that matters. (And even in the silicon, it's confusing as hell since we're often dealing with derivatives of derivatives; and in AMD's habit the practice of rebranding silicon from one line that has defective cores as part of another. Athlon != Athlon, basically.)

Edited April 7, 2013 by EtherealN

[Walking Dude]

Having problems with my sabertooth 990fx rev.1 with trying to update the bios. The p.o.s. won't let me do it. So now I am looking to rebuild. I have been a amd man from the beginning, but looks like I will have to go the Intel route. So, tell me what I need. Wait for the haswell chips to come out in a month or so? Or go the I7 route now?

[SkateZilla]

shakes his head at the "benchmarks" about FX8120/8150 beign bad for gaming, while looking at the fact that I played across 5 screens on a 8120 *NOT OVERCLOCKED* at 60 Frames/sec for over a year.

[cichlidfan]

Start with an i5-3570k.

 

EDIT: That is assuming this is primarily a DCS machine.

[EtherealN]

shakes his head at the "benchmarks" about FX8120/8150 beign bad for gaming, while looking at the fact that I played across 5 screens on a 8120 *NOT OVERCLOCKED* at 60 Frames/sec for over a year.

 

Everything is relative:

 

 

It is "bad for gaming" when a new generation of processors performs worse-to-equal with the same company's previous products, in which case upgrading is pointless.

 

 

Yes, that is actually "bad". :P

As far as games go, the top of the original FX chips (I've yet to see the Piledrivers, as mentioned) were competing with Intel's bottom offerings... How can that be anything other than "bad"? (But of course, for most games, even those Intel bottom offerings are "overpowered", so it'll still play well.)

That is why people went all "WTH?" at Bulldozer when it was released.

 

Now of course, depending on what you're replacing - it might still be a good deal. Skip one generation of processor and get something new without having to also replace mobo and memory? That's a pretty good deal and one that is not available on Intel. But doesn't change the fact that there is plenty of good reason to be shocked at how "bad" the original FX processors were.

[EtherealN]

This one (from http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7 ) might illustrate the point as well:

 

 

Now, as for the 6300 vs that old Phenom, no direct comparison found yet, but

 

 

In that game, we do see a boost of FX-6200 vs Phenom II X4 850, so it should definitely be an upgrade. Clearly not as powerful as the Intel offerings, and as can be seen below - not the best situation on values either:

 

 

...but considering that that OP would have to replace more than the processor, that value plot would probably change quite dramatically. And when other things like productivity is included in the plots, these processors become price-competitive again. But as regards games specifically they do lag behind Intel; not enough to ruin your day, but enough that any completely new machine should go for Intel.

[SkateZilla]

it's a transition period.

 

IPC and High Single Core Clocks is no longer what companies Strive for.

 

now it's Low Power Consumption and Hardware Threads.

 

It's all about making it small, consume less power, put out less heat, and mobility.

 

Bulldozer is behind Intel in Per/Core IPC Yes, But im pretty sure there is a wall there now for silicon, and Intel prolly wont be getting any faster anytime soon with single core IPC.

 

I question some website review's charts simply cuz I get more FpS they they do, with 3x the resolution.

 

It's like Pepsi vs Store Brand soda.

[cichlidfan]

it's a transition period.

 

Riiiiiiight. ;)

[EtherealN]

The problem in the case of Bulldozer and it's derivatives is nothing about being a transition, it's that the architecture itself is almost singlemindedly integer-oriented (and, at least partially, is getting boned by operating system thread scheduling due to the shared resources between the HW threads).

 

In most games out there, this doesn't really matter all that much since most users will bottleneck on the GPU before any CPU runs into the wall. And btw, that Civ5 bench up there? Well that game is multithreaded, and we're seeing Intel 2-cores do better than Bulldozer 8-cores? THAT is worrisome. (But potentially caused by bad scheduling on the OS, since two threads on the Intel will have 2 high-powered FPU's available, whereas bad scheduling can have the AMD working off of a single "speed demon" type decoder and FPU... I'm told Microsoft worked a bit on that stuff though so the picture might have changed by now. It might be like the recent mid-range AMD vs nVidia driver battles where their mid-ranges have traded places on performance with every driver update.)

[porky_pig]

oh come on!

 

slightly biased?

 

they are pretty good, but if you are going to use them for gaming then you are better off with intels w/e bridge is the newest nowadays, like the

i7-3770k or not k or i5-3570k or not k.

 

though it will be more expensive since youd need a new motherboard, and a new cooler because the stock coolers intel provides you with are terrible

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,1.html

 

look at it here, see how you feel about it.

When was the last time AMD outdid anything Intel had on the market? I know the answer to this one...the AMD FX57. AMD has never caught up after Intel introduced a multiple core cpu that didnt rely solely on hyperthreading. Sure, AMD processors have insane float point processing, but what good is a giant calculator? When AMD finally gets ahead of Intel once again, Ill head on back to that ship. You can bet on that.

[Walking Dude]

Having problems with my sabertooth 990fx rev.1 with trying to update the bios. The p.o.s. won't let me do it. So now I am looking to rebuild. I have been a amd man from the beginning, but looks like I will have to go the Intel route. So, tell me what I need. Wait for the haswell chips to come out in a month or so? Or go the I7 route now?

 

BUMP

[pacotito]

If you're itching to get a new machine then ivy will do just fine. Yes haswell will be out soon but I(just my personal choice...probably due to having 5 of the original Xbox 360 rrod) am hesitant to buy the first few batches. The only reason I wish I would have waited for ivy would be pcie3. Early estimates say 10-15% performance increase with haswell but a new architecture can always have problems at the start.

 

As for the AMD vs Intel discussion I went from a 1090t to a 2500k and for dcs Intel crushes AMD. Granted for the average gamer who plays fps they probably won't notice as those are you bound

[SkateZilla]

The problem in the case of Bulldozer and it's derivatives is nothing about being a transition, it's that the architecture itself is almost singlemindedly integer-oriented (and, at least partially, is getting boned by operating system thread scheduling due to the shared resources between the HW threads).

 

In most games out there, this doesn't really matter all that much since most users will bottleneck on the GPU before any CPU runs into the wall. And btw, that Civ5 bench up there? Well that game is multithreaded, and we're seeing Intel 2-cores do better than Bulldozer 8-cores? THAT is worrisome. (But potentially caused by bad scheduling on the OS, since two threads on the Intel will have 2 high-powered FPU's available, whereas bad scheduling can have the AMD working off of a single "speed demon" type decoder and FPU... I'm told Microsoft worked a bit on that stuff though so the picture might have changed by now. It might be like the recent mid-range AMD vs nVidia driver battles where their mid-ranges have traded places on performance with every driver update.)

 

Im not gonna bullshi- anyone... the Bulldozer was slow. But not devastatingly slow like hardware sites are saying it was.

 

Pile Driver so far is decent. But AMD Needs to Adjust the IPC, Adjust the Voltage leaking when overclocking, and dump this slooooooow L1 and L2 Cache already.

 

 

As for Mutli-Threaded Games, an 8-thread chip dont mean all 8 threads will be used,

 

TBH the only time FX8xxx Shines is when I am Doing a ton of things at once, and the Windows Menu and Program Menus still instantly come up with no delay.

[SkateZilla]

When was the last time AMD outdid anything Intel had on the market? I know the answer to this one...the AMD FX57. AMD has never caught up after Intel introduced a multiple core cpu that didnt rely solely on hyperthreading. Sure, AMD processors have insane float point processing, but what good is a giant calculator? When AMD finally gets ahead of Intel once again, Ill head on back to that ship. You can bet on that.

 

APUs.

[EtherealN]

Im not gonna bullshi- anyone... the Bulldozer was slow. But not devastatingly slow like hardware sites are saying it was.

 

I think the big deal here is that most reviews came "early" (with embargoed manufacturing samples), meaning they likely happened before Microsoft caught up. Techreport.com discussed this aspect as well, though I don't recall if it was in the review itself or one of their followup articles.

 

Basically, the bulldozer architecture was so different from what has normally been done in multicore archs that the thread scheduling needs to be done in a different way. (The OS has to intelligently manage threads depending on what types of computation they're heavy in, to ensure that two FP-heavy processes don't end up on the same "module", for example.) I know I read that Microsoft was working on that, but I have not found any articles that does a before/after comparison. (However, Piledriver reviews should include this effect if it has already been implemented by Microsoft.)

[EtherealN]

APUs.

 

Aye.

My wet dream is a processor with an Intel "CPU component" and an AMD "iGP component". Holy hells that would be awesome.

 

Also, in the text you responded to, there is the question of "Sure, AMD processors have insane float point processing, but what good is a giant calculator?" This is a bit weird. The Bulldozers (and derivatives) placed the FPU outside the "core", as a component that is shared in the module, meaning that these AMD processors have insane integer throughput (if multithreaded well), not FP. And good FP performance is often something that games like to have. (DCS not least of them.) Integer however is awesome for the server market, where Bulldozer really does shine, to the point where I almost feel like AMD has the same dominance technology-wise for file/web servers that Intel has on enthusiast gaming rigs.

 

And of course, as far as the "ultrabook" style of product goes, AMD is the way to go thanks to their much supeerior iGP's. (Though tbh, it really is not difficult to beat the Intel iGP's... Holy crap the latter are bad.)