Question 6-Core AMD FX-6300 for music and video editing?

Titanion

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2002
1,470
4
19,295
My friend wants a 6+ core system for music rendering or something, on the used, cheap side, and I have a 6-core AMD FX-6300 running in my garage as an extra "friend" computer overclocked to 4.4 GHz. Would this really be better for video or music editing than a 3rd or 4th generation quad core i5 or i7, overclocked to ~4.4GHz as well?
Or even the 8-core FX-8350?

Rather, when is, or in what generation is a quad core Intel CPU just better than the AMD FX 6 or 8 core CPUs. 6 and 8 cores can't always be better than 4.

I have a computer I picked up that I wasn't able to get to post after spending some time on it last year that has a 6-core i7-3930K in it. I don't know the history of it, dead motherboard maybe. I can try to troubleshoot that. Hard to test. I can't remember the socket, but a replacement motherboard, if that is the problem, looked expensive.

Anyway, so what is a good cheap option for my friend? And is an FX-6300 really better than an i5 3rd or 4th generation quad core for working with music?
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
The FX had @ 2/3 the IPC of a 3rd Gen Ivy-Bridge cpu. If the program uses all 6 cores vs the 4 cores of the 3rd Gen, you break even. If the program uses less than all 6 cores, the Ivy-Bridge will complete tasks faster.

Essentially, the Ivy-Bridge will be solid, the FX can only tie or lose out.

Another issue is cooling, the FX require using a Thermal Margin, AMD Overdrive, to register temp, which does not work the way Intel °C works, so with heavy loading possible on the FX you'd need to learn how to read the margins.

Finding that old software can be problematic. The i7-3770K can possibly be OC'd upto @ 5.0GHz,if you have a good chip, the i7-4790K is closer to 4.5GHz before voltage limitations kick in. The FX8320/50/70 will also go upto 5.0GHz but require really good cooling, the 8320E/8370E were a lower wattage, more stable cpu, but won't go that high.

Pound for pound, nothing touches the i7-3770K in that era. 4c/8t can handle even current software requirements, albeit not as well as modern cpus due to the lack of IPC.

But if budget is that much of a concern, you have a working fx 6300. That bird is in your hand, so is going to be far cheaper than outfitting from scratch unless you opt for a refurb Dell from ebay that has a mediocre gpu included.
 
I'm only casually tinkering around with FL Studio on an old i5-3570K and that works pretty well without hiccups. So in terms of performance, CPUs from that time should do fine for music.
The 2nd gen FX were sort of in the same ballpark with oc, depending on what you do with them. In gaming they were lagging behind a lot, but in some rendering tasks they could keep up rather well.

Now if the FX-6300 does worse, equal or better. What about just testing it.
Have your friend come over, bring some of their music projects and see how well it runs on the FX.
It will draw more power than an i5 or i7 from the time, but you don't have to buy it. So cost will depend.
 

Titanion

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2002
1,470
4
19,295
I'll just give my friend the FX-6300 system I have, then. It is not really needed. It is actually for the brother of my close friend. And I'll also give it another go playing with that i7-3930K system as well.

In terms of my replacing the FX-6300 system in my garage, something cheap and better for light gaming will pop up, like a i5-3570K motherboard combo.

Please tell me about the hard to find software. Is it the FL Studio? What should I look for? What software should someone aim for in term of music projects?

Thanks
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Cpus very, very rarely die. There's ppl still running pc's from 1980 (I have one). However, what makes a pc obsolete is software.

The more modern the software, generally, the more complex it is and uses more resources etc. So the best software to run on those older platforms is invariably the software from that era. It'll run the fastest, use the least amount of resources.

That includes the OS, Win10/Win11 is very short on DOS commands, which many of the drivers back then relied on, most were 8/16 bit and don't get along with 64bit OS in all respects.
 
My friend wants a 6+ core system for music rendering or something, on the used, cheap side, and I have a 6-core AMD FX-6300 running in my garage as an extra "friend" computer overclocked to 4.4 GHz. Would this really be better for video or music editing than a 3rd or 4th generation quad core i5 or i7, overclocked to ~4.4GHz as well?
Or even the 8-core FX-8350?

Rather, when is, or in what generation is a quad core Intel CPU just better than the AMD FX 6 or 8 core CPUs. 6 and 8 cores can't always be better than 4.

I have a computer I picked up that I wasn't able to get to post after spending some time on it last year that has a 6-core i7-3930K in it. I don't know the history of it, dead motherboard maybe. I can try to troubleshoot that. Hard to test. I can't remember the socket, but a replacement motherboard, if that is the problem, looked expensive.

Anyway, so what is a good cheap option for my friend? And is an FX-6300 really better than an i5 3rd or 4th generation quad core for working with music?
Video editing in particular is going benefit from more modern processors that handle AVX instructions better which, BTW, a 6300 with only 3 FPU's doesn't do very well at all. Just putting back into service something that's sitting on the shelf is one thing (in which case, why the question? just use what you got until something better comes along) but if hardware purchases are needed the more relevant concern is which is going to be cheapest to get running well for the purpose.

These are all very old with low capability compared to today's even low-end and hardware to fill out a system is going to be hard to find and either costly or used. So if there is a significant cost it could be far and away more effective to look for even a 1st gen Ryzen 1600 based solution, or Intel's equivalent.
 
Last edited:

Titanion

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2002
1,470
4
19,295
Sorry if this thread about ancient hardware is frustrating for some of you. I do enjoy extending the life of old computer parts, especially when I have them already. And I have more time to give than money.

I guess there is a balance between using what I have or spending very little, and making someone who is a little down and out happy and providing him with a system that is way better than he currently has. And I have lots of DDR3 ram. By the way, will 32GB as opposed to 16GB of DDR3 ram make much difference running this software?

Out of curiosity, what is Intel's equivalent of a 1st gen Ryzen 1600 based solution? I might be willing to spend $100 on Craigslist or Marketplace for him.

I would love to get Windows 10 installed (seems easier), but how much more efficient will Windows 7 be running a FX-6300 based system?

How would one efficiently test the difference between Windows 10 and Windows 7 running this "hard to find" musuc software on an overclocked, FX-6300 based system?

What should he be using? I'll text my friend and see what software his brother is or would like to use.

Thanks
 
Last edited:

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Go with WIn 10.

Fewer security issues, and no real detriment in performance.
I have wondered about that for years. On the one hand, Win10 does have tighter security, that's still being taken care of with updates, Win7 is already EoL, but on the other hand, who really writes virus or Trojans to hack someone using Win7 capable equipment? I mean given the choice, very few would be looking to steal a 84 Nissan station wagon when surrounded by a car lot full of 2023 Camero's....
 
Last edited:
They're still out there.
That's true...

a friend of mine pulled out his old system and did a fresh install of Win 7 on it. He didn't pay much attention by installing a 2nd party antivirus. After posting every update Microsoft offers he went about installing his old "freeware" collection and sure enough picked up an old root-kit ransomware that was hiding in it which locked out the system drive. He was probably on-line at the time so if it was a two-part exploit it could go pick up the rest of the payload which was still out there, just waiting.

Of course, he could laugh it off because it was a throw-away install so he just formatted and went at it again. This time installing an anti-virus (I think Malware Bytes) first which alerted him at the "free" package that included a root-kit. But it does go to show how easy it used to be before the protections built-in to Win10 and 11.
 
Last edited:

Titanion

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2002
1,470
4
19,295
I got the i7-3930K with a nice looking ASUS motherboard that I had working just fine. I bet this will be way better than the FX-6300 and will suit my friend's needs. Thanks.
 
There are two questions here that have the opposite answers:

Question #1 - Can the FX-6300 perform music & video editing?
Answer #1 - Yes, it is capable of this task.

Question #2 - Would the FX-6300 be good at music & video editing?
Answer #2 - No, it would be slow as molasses.
 
There are two questions here that have the opposite answers:

Question #1 - Can the FX-6300 perform music & video editing?
Answer #1 - Yes, it is capable of this task.

Question #2 - Would the FX-6300 be good at music & video editing?
Answer #2 - No, it would be slow as molasses.
They may be opposite answers but they're not inconsistent in the least. Yes, it's capable of the task.... but no, it won't be good at it when compared to modern hardware which makes more sense to invest in for that purpose.
 
Last edited:

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
That's a matter of perspective. As Drea said, compared to modern hardware. As someone who hasn't used anything faster than an i7-3770K OC'd to 4.9GHz and now a 3700x (within the last 10years±), a FX-6300 with some OC isn't all that much slower. Someone coming from a 12900k or 7800x3d would indeed be thinking molasses.

Not everyone has a need for the fastest, as long as it Will do the job in a decent amount of time, that's all that really matters. 5minutes or 50minutes doesn't matter much, just gives me more time to enjoy my coffee.
 
They may be opposite answers but they're not inconsistent in the least.
I know, that's why I like it. There's an irony to it. ;)
Yes, it's capable of the task.... but no, it won't be good at it when compared to modern hardware which makes more sense to invest in for that purpose.
Exactly. Considering how cheap AM4 parts have become, it makes no sense to use an AM3+ platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Corwin65
I know, that's why I like it. There's an irony to it. ;)

Exactly. Considering how cheap AM4 parts have become, it makes no sense to use an AM3+ platform.
Well....it does IF you already have one! Just don't expect it to be a potent system any more than you should expect anything from that era to be.

But it can still be quite useful. I pulled my old FX6300 system out of the closet, threw 16GB of memory in it and OC'd it to 4.6Ghz where it's very comfortable. Installed Win10 and it's smooth as you could ask for running any of the desktop productivity apps that we use today. And with the twice-hand-me-down RX480 I put in it I can game well enough at 1080p to be as happy I would be doing the same on a modern low-end processor and low-end GPU.

I'd completely forgot how slow it can be transcoding a video though...but going to the loo and fetching a drink refresh to burn up 30 min's isn't any different from doing the same to burn up 20 min's that most any processor of the era would take (HEDT aside). I think it's safe to say none of the mainstream desktop processors of that era are exactly "good" at content creation work that involves audio and video editing, not when compared to what even low-end 6 core/12 thread mainstream processors can do now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avro Arrow

Titanion

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2002
1,470
4
19,295
These are parts collecting dust in my garage that I do not have to spend any money on, shop for, meet someone to pick up, etc. The parts are in hand. And the person i am giving it to doesn't have a job or any resources. It feels good to give some additional life to a once great i7-3930K.

Is overclocki g it any different than overclocking an i5-3570k?
 
....Is overclocki g it any different than overclocking an i5-3570k?
Can't say since I've never attempted to OC an Intel core processor.

But it's very easy to do, bump up clocks and voltage and do a reasonable stress test for stability and to see if cooling's OK. Then repeat until temp is to high, lower voltage until it goes unstable. If everything's where you want it good enough, otherwise get a better cooler so you can lower voltage or drop clocks back down till it is. A bit of a dance but typical for the time.

And be reasonable about the stress test: Prime95 is not reasonable.

I have to imagine OC'g a core would be much the same since the limiters and variables are the same: lowest voltage possible at desired clock and manageable temperature.
 
Last edited:
Well....it does IF you already have one! Just don't expect it to be a potent system any more than you should expect anything from that era to be.
That's why I said:
Question #2 - Would the FX-6300 be good at music & video editing?
Answer #2 - No, it would be slow as molasses.
But it can still be quite useful. I pulled my old FX6300 system out of the closet, threw 16GB of memory in it and OC'd it to 4.6Ghz where it's very comfortable. Installed Win10 and it's smooth as you could ask for running any of the desktop productivity apps that we use today. And with the twice-hand-me-down RX480 I put in it I can game well enough at 1080p to be as happy I would be doing the same on a modern low-end processor and low-end PSU.
I couldn't agree more! I used my old FX-8350 for a makeshift mining rig during the first half of 2022. The 990FX motherboard allowed me to run both my RX 5700 XT and RX 6800 XT in the rig. Now it's being used by my mother for her HTPC. That FX CPU was the best CPU purchase that I'd ever made because the forward-thinking design gave it incredible longevity.
I'd completely forgot how slow it can be transcoding a video though...but going to the loo and fetching a drink refresh to burn up 30 min's isn't any different from doing the same to burn up 20 min's that most any processor of the era would take (HEDT aside). I think it's safe to say none of the mainstream desktop processors of that era are exactly "good" at content creation work that involves audio and video editing, not when compared to what even low-end 6 core/12 thread mainstream processors can do now.
This is very true, but don't forget that you also can offload video transcoding to your video card which speeds things up dramatically.

Offloading the work to the GPU can, in most cases, make the CPU largely irrelevant if you're using H.264/265. If you're using Xvid however, it's completely CPU-based. CPU transcoding tends to be higher quality than GPU transcoding but the difference is small enough to be (mostly) unnoticeable and is therefore "good enough" for most non-professional use cases.

For example, AVC Free can use both GeForce and Radeon cards to speed up transcoding using H.264/H.265. Whenever I'm transcoding video on my craptop, I actually use its (otherwise useless) GTX 1050M GPU instead of its R5-3500U and the difference in speed is very evident. For everything else, I use the Vega-8 IGP to save on power. I usually leave the GTX 1050M disabled because other than for transcoding, I have no use for it. ;)
 

TRENDING THREADS