Is the FX-6350 actually a superior processor or is it like graphics cards where it just came with a factory overclock and it would cap out at about the same OC potential as an FX-6300?
Same architecture and such, higher clock speeds, higher TDP (more overclockability) and better stock heat sink.
Oooh okay. Will grab it then instead of the 6300. I was expecting it's just for those who don't overclock so it's basically just they overclock it 400MHz for you for a charge of $15 :p
The entire advantage of the AMD processors is that they overclock well.
I know, I just didn't know if the 6350 vs 6300 is like getting a GTX 560 with factory overclock vs a normal one... you can overclock it yourself and save the money and getting the factory overclock doesn't really increase the maximum overclock you can get
Well, since it's the same architecture and the same process size, you're still playing the same luck game (after binning of course) in the capability of your chip, and the ceiling should remain the same, although the boost in non-turbo speed is nice for non overclockers since it's a flat boost in speed on all cores, rather than a boost in turbo speed, where one or more cores is throttled down as the others speed up. No changes in cpu memory cache, so in a nut shell it's almost like the factory oc option although with the whole multicore aspect it works a bit differently than ramping up base clock/ boost clock/ kepler boost
I know the bumped the cache up on the FX-4350 not sure abou the 6350. But the 6350 is gonna be binned a bit better than the 6300 as it's a higher tier CPU and higher TDP.
02/10/2014 11:53 AMPosted by Macaria05/09/2013 12:35 AMPosted by YongsaFX-6350 is still 8MB shared L3, and 2MB L2 split between pairs, same as the FX-6300. The higher TDP comes from the bumping up the base clock speed by 400 MHz
AMD FX-6350 Vishera 3.9GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor
• 32nm Vishera 125W
• 8MB L3 Cache
• 6MB L2 Cache
The 6350 is not a TRUE 6 core, the 8350 isn't a TRUE 8 core either. They are 3 core and 4 core respectively. The 6350 has 3 physical and 3 virtual cores, and the 8350 had 4 physical and 4 virtual cores.
My Phenom II 965 BE stomps the 8350s butt and runs circles around the 6350. And Ive got it OC stable at 4.2GHZ on 4 PHYSICAL cores.
Even my i5 3570K stomps a mudhole in the both those AMD processors, but it doesn't beat my Phenom.
Well this is why I am here, to correct many fallacies in statements :). The FX series does NOT have logical processors. The FX-83xx has 8 cores on a module design. The problem is, the FX-83xx has 4 modules each with 2 cores and 1 floating integer. So if you want a true comparison, an FX-83xx has about 6 full cores of power. You lose about 50% gain after 50% load give or take. The FX-8350 does NOT get stomped by the 965 BE. Sure OC'ed to 4.2GHz it will probably win in single threaded applications, but most newer games that use 3 and 4 cores, the FX-8350 will offer better performance as well as better multitasking. Now if we're talking about first gen bulldozer CPU's, ya they were garbage. Same basic design with 2 IPC's vs the redesign of 4 per. Also, in no world will a 965 BE beat a 3570K clock for clock in any situation.