FX-6300 vs FX-8120 on Server 2012

[gus6464]

Everything else being equal which would be the better choice for a Server 2012 machine with Hyper-V VMs?

On newegg I have the machines priced with $520 for the 6300 and $548 for the 8120 total.

 

[Jimzz]

For less than $30 difference I would get the 8120.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I would go for the FX-6300.
It's higher frequency 3.5 GHz vs 3.1 GHz, the cores are the faster piledriver, rather than the slower/older bulldozer, which gives better IPC.
The FX-6300 potentially uses less power 95W rather than 125W.

Even if you used all 8 cores of the 8120, I doubt it would give much speed benefit to an FX-6300.

 

[Yuriman]

The 6300 and 8120 both have the same amount of L3 cache.

I'd probably go with the 6300.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Go here and make your own conclusions:
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/

But if you do get to use all cores, the 8120 would be faster by a decent margin. Remember that Bulldozer to Piledriver was a refresh, similar to going from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge.

 

[gus6464]

So basically while I am studying for the exam I will have around 8 vm's running. When I am done I will use the machine as my home server with 3 VMs. This shouldn't be a problem for the 6300 right?

 

[gus6464]

Thanks for the help everyone ended up going for the 6300. Got all this for $480 before tax.

FX-6300
MSI 970A-G43
16gb Crucial Ballistix
Corsair CX430
1TB Seagate HDD
3TB Toshiba HDD

 

[soccerballtux]

no but depends on what you're doing in the VMs, compiling code? distributed something or the other?