Yes, if you meant M4A89GTD PRO/USB3? That's what I have. I finished Starcraft 2 expansion so I reverted back to stock while I'm between games, but that motherboard was very stable with an overclocked FX-6300 for the entire game.
Thanks for this thread. Something to think on. I really with my AM3+ board simply supported Piledriver. Dammit, Gigabyte, you guys usually come through on this stuff for me! Bulldozer support only
Sorry, yes I did. I have the same motherboard and going to see if I can overclock the 8320 with it.
Hey make sure you look into this, maybe search if anyone has tried it?
For my Asus mobo, I believe it does *NOT* state that it would support Piledriver, rather, it only states that it would support Bulldozer. And even then it's still a beta version of the BIOS. So, maybe you could have the same benefit, where the BIOS says it only supports Bulldozer, but turns out maybe it actually supports Piledriver too?
I have the same processor at the Same clock speed and I'm scoring much lower. My geekbench is around 8000. Can you help me
What would be the point of that? Anyway you look at it the two are not directly comparable. One is 3M/6 thread chip that costs 100 pounds while the other is 12T (no matter if you turn of SMT, it's still there as a feature) that costs 400 pounds. Plus the cost of motherboard skews it even more. Performance wise 6T FX has no way of matching 6C SB-E with SMT off. This doesn't make FX63xxx a bad chip at all (it's great perf/$ offering), it's just not in that class of products no matter how you look at it.We really need to see benchmarks comparing this 6 core to a 6 core Sandy with HT off. Then we can see what £100 does vs £400 intel.
What would be the point of that? Anyway you look at it the two are not directly comparable. One is 3M/6 thread chip that costs 100 pounds while the other is 12T (no matter if you turn of SMT, it's still there as a feature) that costs 400 pounds. Plus the cost of motherboard skews it even more. Performance wise 6T FX has no way of matching 6C SB-E with SMT off. This doesn't make FX63xxx a bad chip at all (it's great perf/$ offering), it's just not in that class of products no matter how you look at it.
The point would be to see how well the FX does in games and apps that can use 6 threads.
FX 6300 at 4Ghz should be on the same level as i5 3570k in Crysis 3, at 4.5ghz it should beat it.
I doubt its "stability." Not at 1.456v. Unless you just have an amazing chip, the FX-6300 needs ~1.48v just to get to 4.4 GHz. You can boot with insufficient power, and you might even be able to run Prime95 due to throttling. But try booting up an intensive game on your 4.5 GHz @ 1.456v. Doubtful.
Just a question though, why'd you slow down the HT link to 2.4 GHz?
In any case, I find this thread particularly interesting insofar as the 6300 has always struck me as an impressive value proposition for people desiring to build a solid mid-range system with better-than-intel multi-threaded performance and still very respectable gaming performance -- especially with its lower stock clock and unlocked multiplier, I would think that this chip would get more recommendations for OC-friendly builders on a budget.
I feel like I should sell my phenom 965 and get myself 6300.
I have hd7870 and I don't plan to upgrade anytime soon. Is there any reason why I should take 8320 into account?
Knowing my luck, as soon as I buy one, AMD will release fx-6400...
I think it does get alot of +1 around here. Any time a poster comes around looking for a tight budget build somebody throws the fx 6xxx in the mix. Toms hardware has had it on their list of entry level gaming cpu for a while now.
At microcenter you can get a 6300 with a free asus motherboard for $100.- after rebate. That is ALOT of computer for tiny $$$
I feel like I should sell my phenom 965 and get myself 6300.
I have hd7870 and I don't plan to upgrade anytime soon. Is there any reason why I should take 8320 into account?
Knowing my luck, as soon as I buy one, AMD will release fx-6400...