Quick question. Amd 6300 or 6350? I feel like there the same chip but clocked differently. True or false? I plan on overclocking hopefully close to 5 ghz. I can snag the 6300 for 109.99. So ill snag that. But if 6350 is actually better ill grab that. Im looking for the cheapest route to upgrade my rig. Fiance wants a desktop for work. I can piece her one together if i grab a cpu and mobo. I have a 1090t right now.
fx 6300 or 6350 ?
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Joined
·
8,728 Posts
6350 is the second revision, it clocks better than 6300 which already clocks pretty well.
They cost the same unless a shop is clearing them out because the 6300 is out of production
And yes a 6350 is definitely better than a 1090t
If you want a real upgrade go to a 8350.
They cost the same unless a shop is clearing them out because the 6300 is out of production
And yes a 6350 is definitely better than a 1090t
If you want a real upgrade go to a 8350.
Joined
·
9,269 Posts
That is exactly right. Same cache sizes, same number of cores, everything. The only difference is that the 6350 clocks higher with better stability, but you'd be better off A) saving your money and getting a 6300 B) spend about the same and get a cooler with a 6350 or C) spend a little more and get an 8320.
Joined
·
4,406 Posts
Quote:
FX-6300 has the same $10 off promo so the price difference is still $20.Originally Posted by synge
6350 is only $10 more on Newegg right now (with promo code)
83xx is great too (I have one) but it won't OC very well on cheap cooling like the 63xx will.
Anyway: I'd absolutely spend the extra $20 for the FX-6350. And if for gaming purposes only, I wouldn't be tempted by the FX-83xx unless you're planning on watercooling anyway. The extra two cores offer little to no advantage in games, and 8 cores are hard to cool.
I run my FX-8350 as a six core most of the time just so I can clock it higher. Could have saved $50 or so going with the 6350. Oh well.
I run my FX-8350 as a six core most of the time just so I can clock it higher. Could have saved $50 or so going with the 6350. Oh well.
Joined
·
6,914 Posts
Quote:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-pib.aspx
Quote:
The FX-6300 is not EOL.Originally Posted by DaveLT
because the 6300 is out of production
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-pib.aspx
Quote:
Joined
·
3,246 Posts
I wouldn't spend the extra $$ on a 6350 vs a 6300. All it is is a better binned 6300 (with slightly higher stock clocks, and a higher TDP), so unless another 100-200MHz is important for you from your overclock (likely at most that much), then I'd save the cash.
To me, the best options out there right now are the 6300 and the 8320, especially when they are both on sale.
Thats my two cents anyway.
To me, the best options out there right now are the 6300 and the 8320, especially when they are both on sale.
Thats my two cents anyway.
Joined
·
3,973 Posts
Quote:
But what games do you play? Also I thought I read on here if you run it with modules disabled you'll kill your CPUOriginally Posted by synge
Anyway: I'd absolutely spend the extra $20 for the FX-6350. And if for gaming purposes only, I wouldn't be tempted by the FX-83xx unless you're planning on watercooling anyway. The extra two cores offer little to no advantage in games, and 8 cores are hard to cool.
I run my FX-8350 as a six core most of the time just so I can clock it higher. Could have saved $50 or so going with the 6350. Oh well.
Joined
·
8,728 Posts
Quote:
You just have to be careful which core you disable, you are to disable module by module not core by core, if you do it core by core it will kill it in short orderOriginally Posted by diggiddi
But what games do you play? Also I thought I read on here if you run it with modules disabled you'll kill your CPU
Joined
·
6,914 Posts
Quote:
Where is your source for such information? I have never seen such info to be trueOriginally Posted by DaveLT
You just have to be careful which core you disable, you are to disable module by module not core by core, if you do it core by core it will kill it in short order
Joined
·
8,728 Posts
Quote:
GOOGLE IT. It's even on the 6800k 8GHz news thread
Oh. Previously you said i shouldn't speak since i don't own a Piledriver and now you doubt me.Originally Posted by EniGma1987
Where is your source for such information? I have never seen such info to be true
GOOGLE IT. It's even on the 6800k 8GHz news thread
Joined
·
6,914 Posts
I never said you shouldnt speak. lol. Why so butt hurt?
I actually did "google it", and found no evidence in support of your statement. I have also not seen such evidence in the past, though I did hear someone claim it before. No proof though, just someone deciding that it was true. I know someone who has been running an FX-8320 for month now with every other core disabled and it has no issues at all. I also see world renowned overclockers recommending to disable every other core, including "The Stilt" who is the one who hit that 8GHz you just mentioned.
I just went through that entire thread you suggested. Found only this one post by some random user:
Quote:
AMD's Trubo Core 2.0 design will clock cores separately, so it is neither designed nor required that all cores be the same speed.
It also will not kill the CPU to disable one core. People do it all the time.
I actually did "google it", and found no evidence in support of your statement. I have also not seen such evidence in the past, though I did hear someone claim it before. No proof though, just someone deciding that it was true. I know someone who has been running an FX-8320 for month now with every other core disabled and it has no issues at all. I also see world renowned overclockers recommending to disable every other core, including "The Stilt" who is the one who hit that 8GHz you just mentioned.
I just went through that entire thread you suggested. Found only this one post by some random user:
Quote:
No evidence to back it up at all, just one persons opinion, which isnt true BTW.Originally Posted by Demonkev666
did you also notice that any one that lowered one core in a module with the other one higher end up with a dead chip after a short time ?
The modules are designed to be synchronized.
They usually die if you try pushing one core in the module to a different clock.
AMD's Trubo Core 2.0 design will clock cores separately, so it is neither designed nor required that all cores be the same speed.
It also will not kill the CPU to disable one core. People do it all the time.
Joined
·
8,728 Posts
Quote:
Also i've had my friend kill his 8350 from disabling every other core
This is different from DISABLING every other core.Originally Posted by EniGma1987
I never said you shouldnt speak. lol. Why so butt hurt?
I just went through that entire thread you suggested. Found only this one post by some random user:
No evidence to back it up at all, just one persons opinion, which isnt true BTW.
AMD's Trubo Core 2.0 design will clock cores separately, so it is neither designed nor requires that all cores be the same speed.
It also will not kill the CPU to disable one core. People do it all the time.
Also i've had my friend kill his 8350 from disabling every other core
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Join the discussion
