Top critical review
3 people found this helpful
Decent CPU but a bit close to the 6300 in price
on 17 January 2014
I've made a few builds with this CPU (but advised on going for the next model up)
There is nothing wrong with the performance of it, quite respectable. But compared to the FX4100 there isn't any real progress made by AMD performance wise. Whislt it has the newer piledriver core, and IPC improvements. For some reason AMD dropped the level 3 cache down to 4mb from 8mb, and despite the slightly better clockspeed v the older FX4100, this does impact performance.
+ Decent performance and still quite a good CPU for those wanting to overclock
+ Benefits from the newer instructions in piledriver...XOP, CVT16, BMI, TBM and FMA4. This might be of use down the road if software supports them.
- Reduced level 3 cache impacts performance, not really faster than the FX4100
- No decrease in TDP v the FX4100, ie a 95w part I would have expected something here for energy efficient users
- Price is so close to the FX6300, it's hard to recommend it based purely on that.
Performance wise you'll get around 4500 in passmark (quite respectable enough) and it will have no problems at all for most tasks thrown at it. The problem is for only a few pounds more, you can bag the FX6300 and desipte the cores being clocked slightly slower on that CPU, the full 8mb of cache means it's just as fast per module/core as the FX4300.
It could still be worth a look if you want to build a budget gaming pc, or want to play around with overclocking. On the other hand you can pick up the 6300 and disable one module/2 cores and do the same thing!
For applications that use heavy multi threading the 6 core AMD processor clearly has a performance advantage (and by some margin for photo/video work), no penalty with TDP and frankly is the most obvious choice for users in this price range. I note the price has dropped in recent times to more appealing levels, but really for a bit extra the 6 core CPU is the one to go for really