AMD FX 6300 Power Consumption

[Mihir Panchal]

Hello,
I am new to this forum. I found that this forum gives very useful information to computer related query, so hoping to clear my confusion too

I am planning to buy AMD FX 6300. So wanted to know how would be the power bill for this processor. I know its 95 Watts, but will it almost be same like i5 3450. Or though I would be saving on FX processor price but ultimately keep on paying more in my electricity bill .

Have seen many charts and comparision, but want to know from someone who is actually using it or used it.

Thanks in advance.

 

[griptwister]

Lol, The difference isn't much Stick with the FX 6300

 

[bob1033]

Haha, don't worry, the difference is barely noticeable.

Annual home energy cost for i5-3450: 18.55 $/year
Annual home energy cost for FX-6300: 22.89 $/year

You save $4 a year on your bill if you bought the intel.

 

[jaguarskx]

The FX-6300 uses a little more electricity than the i5-3450 while idling, and generally a decent amount more when full loaded. It also depends on how much you are paying per KWH, I believe the national average is about $0.105. If you live in Hawaii then it's more like $0.40 - $0.45 per KWH depending on where in Hawaii.

The below chart shows total system power consumption of various CPUs with an overclocked GTX 580. Naturally if all the test rigs had a Radeon HD 7750, then maximum power consumption would be less. Toss in a GTX Titan and maximum power consumption would be higher. The i5-3450 is not in the chart, but the ithe i5-3470 is. For simplicity sake just assume 2w (85w idle / 120w stressed) less power usage for the i5-3450.

The FX-6300 is 102w idle and 227w stressed. That means the FX-6300 uses 17w more power when idling and 107w more power when stressed. Assuming the PC is on 24/7 that works out to a 150KWH difference when idling and a 937KWH when stressed. Assuming the $0.105 average US cost per KWH that basically means at the very least the FX-6300 will cost you an extra $15 per year to at most $95 more per year.

Of course those numbers are not realistic. While it is possible that you can simply turn on a PC 24/7 and not bother doing anything with it, that is an unlikely situation. Stressing your PC 24/7 is highly improbable, but at least it sets the maximum possible costs you may see in the very worse scenario with an overclocked GTX 580.

Use that info to guess-timate what you think you will be paying for electricity.

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page7.html

 

[GhislainG]

jaguarskx
11 July 2013 15:48:28

I think you should make a sticky thread of the costs between the amd fx line piledriver/bulldozer cpus comared to the ivy bridge aswell sandy bridge cpus. People always make it sound like its nothing when normally after 3 years the faster intel cpu is cheaper even with a decent motherboard.

It depends on where you live. If power is inexpensive and/or you need to heat your house part of the year, then the total cost difference may not be as significant as some people make it sound. While an AMD system is more expensive to run in a hot climate, the cost difference definitely is lower in Canada or the northern states. Calculating the actual difference may be easy in some areas, but not everyehere.

 

[noob2222]

The FX-6300 uses a little more electricity than the i5-3450 while idling, and generally a decent amount more when full loaded. It also depends on how much you are paying per KWH, I believe the national average is about $0.105. If you live in Hawaii then it's more like $0.40 - $0.45 per KWH depending on where in Hawaii.

The below chart shows total system power consumption of various CPUs with an overclocked GTX 580. Naturally if all the test rigs had a Radeon HD 7750, then maximum power consumption would be less. Toss in a GTX Titan and maximum power consumption would be higher. The i5-3450 is not in the chart, but the ithe i5-3470 is. For simplicity sake just assume 2w (85w idle / 120w stressed) less power usage for the i5-3450.

The FX-6300 is 102w idle and 227w stressed. That means the FX-6300 uses 17w more power when idling and 107w more power when stressed. Assuming the PC is on 24/7 that works out to a 150KWH difference when idling and a 937KWH when stressed. Assuming the $0.105 average US cost per KWH that basically means at the very least the FX-6300 will cost you an extra $15 per year to at most $95 more per year.

Of course those numbers are not realistic. While it is possible that you can simply turn on a PC 24/7 and not bother doing anything with it, that is an unlikely situation. Stressing your PC 24/7 is highly improbable, but at least it sets the maximum possible costs you may see in the very worse scenario with an overclocked GTX 580.

Use that info to guess-timate what you think you will be paying for electricity.

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page7.html

depends on wheter you use a chart thats off the norm.

now the difference is only 44 watts and not some overinflated 107. did you notice that the vishera cpus pulls more power than bulldozer on that techspot article? can you say WRONG.

It's a little unexpected to see the Piledriver-based FX-8350 (the blue line) clearly using less power over the course of our benchmark suite than the Bulldozer-based FX-8150 (the green line), even though the previous-gen part operates at a base frequency 400 MHz lower.
- tomshardware

 

[noob2222]

^^ edit button isn't working. but at 44W, thats $40 a year while encding 24/7. even at that it would take 2 1/2 years to pay for the cost difference between the i5 and 6300.

use the computer only 12hrs a day, and its 5 years. Idle power + max power average for 12/7 ... 8+ years.

 

[noob2222]

if the op is gaming, then what task is being completed? there is no task energy in a game, its over when you alt-f4 the game.

aside from that, 2x more efficient is meaningless when your talking about a difference of ~$15 a year at an initial cost of $100 more. hell, it could be 15X more efficient, but if the yearly cost is still $15 different, it doesn't chang anything at all.

$15 a year is $15 a year.

 

[jaguarskx]

now the difference is only 44 watts and not some overinflated 107. did you notice that the vishera cpus pulls more power than bulldozer on that techspot article? can you say WRONG.

It's a little unexpected to see the Piledriver-based FX-8350 (the blue line) clearly using less power over the course of our benchmark suite than the Bulldozer-based FX-8150 (the green line), even though the previous-gen part operates at a base frequency 400 MHz lower.
- tomshardware

The chart I provided is at full load. The chart you provided is only for playing back HD video.

Did you even pay bother reading my post? Or do you just look at "pretty pictures", meaning the chart only?

The difference in power measurement between PileDriver and Bulldozer is within a few watts which can be easily accounted by power fluctuations or sampling error.

I think you have chosen your name properly because you certain behave like a noobie.

 

[Chris Droste]

if you're pinching pennies, then an appropriate-sized PSU is going to be a larger benefit than the difference between CPUs. if you MUST have the most power savings, then go intel, and get one of the chips that have an " S " designation. performance per watt is typically better with an intel system, and nVidia typically runs cooler/more power efficient. all this really comes down to your budget limits and cost of energy in the area. if you're in the US in a relatively low-cost area(not cali basically) then might as well do an FX 8350 since it'll match up well against a 3rd-gen i5 performance-wise.

 

[noob2222]

now the difference is only 44 watts and not some overinflated 107. did you notice that the vishera cpus pulls more power than bulldozer on that techspot article? can you say WRONG.

It's a little unexpected to see the Piledriver-based FX-8350 (the blue line) clearly using less power over the course of our benchmark suite than the Bulldozer-based FX-8150 (the green line), even though the previous-gen part operates at a base frequency 400 MHz lower.
- tomshardware

The chart I provided is at full load. The chart you provided is only for playing back HD video.

Did you even pay bother reading my post? Or do you just look at "pretty pictures", meaning the chart only?

The difference in power measurement between PileDriver and Bulldozer is within a few watts which can be easily accounted by power fluctuations or sampling error.

I think you have chosen your name properly because you certain behave like a noobie.

really? if im a newbie, your a retard for doing exactly what you said. looking at pretty pictures. since that excuse was the lamest thing I ever heard ... playback ... rofl

If we look at average power over the course of the two x264 encode passes, the results back up what we've seen
above:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6

there you go since you don't know what anandtech's pictures look like. whose the newbie now? playback ... rofl.

there is a massive difference between peak power consumption and average power usage. Your maximum peak usage is only useful in determining the power supply needed, has nothing to do with RL use. Peak power may only last for 1 second, but if it can be used in an attempt to show the worst possible scenario that will never happen 24/7, all the better for false assumptions.

p.s. if you don't like insults, you shouldn't have started it.

 

[Mihir Panchal]

Thanks a lot all of you for valuable information. Appreciated!!

 

[jaguarskx]

there you go since you don't know what anandtech's pictures look like. whose the newbie now? playback ... rofl.

there is a massive difference between peak power consumption and average power usage. Your maximum peak usage is only useful in determining the power supply needed, has nothing to do with RL use. Peak power may only last for 1 second, but if it can be used in an attempt to show the worst possible scenario that will never happen 24/7, all the better for false assumptions.

p.s. if you don't like insults, you shouldn't have started it.

I suggest you watch your tone in your responses to members of this forum unless you want to be banned.

If you bothered to read my initial post I have stated that the chart provides idle and CPU full load power consumption. But both are considered unrealistic because:

1. People do not simply turn on the PC and walk away.
2. The PC will never be at full load all the time. But at least it serves as a theoretical worse case scenario.

The actual difference in power consumption will somewhere in between based on actual usage.

 

[griptwister]

I think n00b just confused you with a fanboy and took your statement as an insult. If anyone deserves to be banned, it is hafijur. He doesn't shut up about intel being better on a AMD Speculation and conjuncture thread.

 

[noob2222]

there you go since you don't know what anandtech's pictures look like. whose the newbie now? playback ... rofl.

there is a massive difference between peak power consumption and average power usage. Your maximum peak usage is only useful in determining the power supply needed, has nothing to do with RL use. Peak power may only last for 1 second, but if it can be used in an attempt to show the worst possible scenario that will never happen 24/7, all the better for false assumptions.

p.s. if you don't like insults, you shouldn't have started it.

I suggest you watch your tone in your responses to members of this forum unless you want to be banned.

If you bothered to read my initial post I have stated that the chart provides idle and CPU full load power consumption. But both are considered unrealistic because:

1. People do not simply turn on the PC and walk away.
2. The PC will never be at full load all the time. But at least it serves as a theoretical worse case scenario.

The actual difference in power consumption will somewhere in between based on actual usage.

my responce is no worse than you calling me a newbie and looking at pretty pictures.

Did you even pay bother reading my post? Or do you just look at "pretty
pictures", meaning the chart only?
The difference in power measurement between PileDriver and Bulldozer is
within a few watts which can be easily accounted by power fluctuations or
sampling error.
I think you have chosen your name properly because you certain behave like a
noobie.

your a moderator and your first responce to me is calling me a noobie because I look at pretty pictures. how do you think that looks coming from a moderator.



aside from that every other review out there has pd at lower load and idle power except the one you seeimingly randomly picked.

then again it may not have been randomly picked since its higher than almost all other reviews. This is a tactic that most haters try to do, show the worst results they can find.

then again im just a "noobie" and what do I know.

then again, I did pick my name soley out of sarcasm.

 

[jaguarskx]

your a moderator and your first responce to me is calling me a noobie because I look at pretty pictures. how do you think that looks coming from a moderator.

You need to read a post in it's full context and do not antagonize other people.

You are free to disagree with any member in this forum, including moderators, after all that what this forum is for. But you need to be a bit more tactful in your responses.