AMD FX6300 Interesting Question.

[rabbit2012]

Hi guys,

I'm buying a new CPU for my server which runs multiple tasks at once.

Each task doesn't require a great deal of CPU performance so saying intel is better may be true in terms of Core vs Core but if I want to run lots of things at once would having 6 cores be a better option than the i3 with 2 cores and 2 virtual cores?

Furthermore I was going to try and run a Virtual Machine with with 4 cores assigned and 2 cores left on the main OS to run a media center such as XBMC. Would this work?

Thank you in advanced,
Rabbit

 

[FALC0N]

The 6300 would serve well in this role and would perform better than an I3 would. Your plan is a sound one.

 

[mactronix]

If speed is not really an issue then why not get a cheaper 8 core FX CPU and go 4 + 4 or 6 + 2 ?

Mactronix

 

[rabbit2012]

Cheers for the reply, I was going 6 core due to cost. I would of gone a quad core but I think spending the extra $20-30 for 2 more cores would seem better.

 

[BuddiLuva]

If you won't be gaming on it, the 6 core is without doubt much better than the i3

 

[lostgamer_03]

Cheers for the reply, I was going 6 core due to cost. I would of gone a quad core but I think spending the extra $20-30 for 2 more cores would seem better.

The price difference is only 10$ between FX 4300 and FX 6300

 

[lostgamer_03]

If you won't be gaming on it, the 6 core is without doubt much better than the i3

FX 6300 beats i3 in gaming.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

 

[BuddiLuva]

FX 6300 beats i3 in gaming.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Well there you go, 6300 it is.