What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

AMD Vishera FX-6300 & FX-4300 Review Comment Thread

SKYMTL

HardwareCanuck Review Editor
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,410
Location
Montreal

SKYMTL

HardwareCanuck Review Editor
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,410
Location
Montreal
How would it be though? The APU is able to get to 4.2GHz with Turbo while the quad only gets to 4.0. Granted, TDP overhead means the FX-4300 will spend more time at or near its max Turbo rate (due to the lack of an internal graphics processor) but that will only affect some tests and not others.
 

Mena

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
467
Location
Hanover, Ontario
Wow....

AMD seriously needs to smarten up with its power draws for its CPU's. AMD CPU's are really power hungry compared to Intels.
 

YoungMan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
453
Location
Surrey, B.C.
I was going for more of a value/pricing perspective. FM boards are much cheaper than AM3+, and for the same price of the CPU, you get a decent onboard video. The CPU difference is too small to make the FX worth it.
 

frontier204

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
1,352
Location
ON, Canada
Thanks for throwing in the gaming bench for the overclocking section. It lets me know that it'll be a downgrade for me if I replace my Sandy Bridge platform that can't overclock with an overclocked FX for gaming :blarg: I wanted to try my first custom water loop with these FX but if it won't make a difference and I'll have to replace my UPS for the added power consumption...

I'm surprised how little a difference the lack of shared cache has between the A10 and the FX-4300 in everything other than gaming with dedicated GPU, a bench in which both AMD CPUs are slaughtered by Intel at the same price point. IMHO you got that conclusion correct in not awarding the 4300. The FX-4300 is comparable to Sandy Bridge Pentiums in performance, but the price is just too high to put those in the same bracket.
 

SKYMTL

HardwareCanuck Review Editor
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,410
Location
Montreal
I really had to scratch my head over AMD's quad core pricing strategy. I had a whole other section written but it wouldn't have really added to the conclusion since it was more opinion-based rather than factual.

Basically, I can't see why AMD would want to protect the A10 series, especially against the FX-4300. The APUs are aimed at an OEM / system builder market while the FX-series certainly isn't so there can't be all that much product overlap. Had the FX-4300 been priced at $110, I would have been singing its praises.
 

Bond007

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,988
Location
Nova Scotia
Nice review and nice conclusion. Seems the 6300 and 8350 would be solid recommendations if you don't mind a bit of extra power consumption for the price, and its not a dedicated gaming rig. The 4300 performance drop per $ is just too great.

I am now wondering about the 8320 though. I am curious if they will get as much of an OC as a 8350 given the money saved going with the 8320. I am not sure if its performance would end up closer to a 6300 or a 8350, given it has similar clocks to a 6300, but the core count of the 8350.
 

sswilson

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
17,860
Location
Moncton NB
IMO there's still nothing there to recommend one of these over either a deneb (got a 965 for $90 the other day) or the hex cores (not so easy to find these days) unless there's a specific application which takes advantage of their new instructions.

I haven't seen it mentioned so am assuming that the answer in no, but am wondering if anything in win8 benefits from bulldozer/piledriver? (Not that I'm going to be running win8..... ;) ).
 
Top