FX 6350 question..

[massa902]

I know this CPU is labelled as a 6 core cpu but I have read a few reviews saying that it is only a 3 core cpu with 6 threads. I would Imagine that if you were usingCPU-Zit would say 6 cores but I just wasnt to be sure before I buy it..

 

[DazleFrazle]

Keep in mind that the fx-6300 and the fx-6350 are the same chips clocked at different speeds. So if you are going to be overclocking anyways, it's more worthwhile to be buying the fx-6300 and spending the difference on a cooler.

 

[8350rocks]

I know this CPU is labelled as a 6 core cpu but I have read a few reviews saying that it is only a 3 core cpu with 6 threads. I would Imagine that if you were usingCPU-Zit would say 6 cores but I just wasnt to be sure before I buy it..

Yes it has 6 cores, and 3 floating point units, whoever told you it was only 3 cores was uninformed. Check the CPU-Z validation in my signature and you can see the FX 8350 is listed as 8 cores.

 

[8350rocks]

You're right. It has 4 physical cores, and 6 logical cores. Meaning it can process 6 threads worth of processes at once. In CPU-Z it does say 6 cores.

Also keep in mind that the fx-6300 and the fx-6350 are the same chips clocked at different speeds. So if you are going to be overclocking anyways, it's more worthwhile to be buying the fx-6300 and spending the difference on a cooler.

No, it has 6 physical cores, and 0 logical/virtual cores. AMD doesn't use HTT...that's an Intel trick.

 

[huilun02]

It doesn't have 6 physical cores. It's like 3 physical cores that have hyperthreading.

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1809683/6300-shows-core.html

 

[massa902]

I love my intel PC right now but I want another one and I can't decide between the FX 6350,8350 or going with intel again and spending la few hundred more and the CPU and MB.....

 

[rgd1101]

It doesn't have 6 physical cores. It's like 3 physical cores that have hyperthreading.

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1809683/6300-shows-core.html

wrong. FX don't use hyperthreading.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html
look at the die, it have 2 cores each modules. and there are 4 module for FX 8350, 6350 just have one modules disabled.

here is a die of intel i7, only 4 core, but 8 thread
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,3521.html

 

[huilun02]

There's nothing wrong with getting the 6300 or 6350 if you wana save on cost. What's best for you depends on what you gona use it for, and how much you wana spend.

And why the need for another PC? Is your current one too slow on games? Or is it for someone else...

 

[8350rocks]

It doesn't have 6 physical cores. It's like 3 physical cores that have hyperthreading.

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1809683/6300-shows-core.html

No, it has 6 physical integer cores, and 3 flex floating point units.

There is no way you get 3 cores from 3 modules. Each module is 2 physical integer cores, with a flex FPU that can do 2x128 bit FMAC floating point calculations for both cores.

 

[massa902]

There's nothing wrong with getting the 6300 or 6350 if you wana save on cost. What's best for you depends on what you gona use it for, and how much you wana spend.

And why the need for another PC? Is your current one too slow on games? Or is it for someone else...

I would like to use my current PC for games and I would like to get another for work and games, I am getting into video editing and rendering now and there is a possible future plus I am never certain about hardware So If something fails in one PC i would have the other oneready to go while I wait for the part/s on the other. I just like being careful. I am not saying i am reckless with my PC though I take care of it very well Ithink.

 

[huilun02]

An AMD FX processor would be very good for video editing and rendering as they take advantage of the higher number of cores. But we can't recommend you a build or anything without knowing how much u wana spend.

 

[TheLastDoomguy]

All cores on processors that are later than 6th generation x86 are logical or virtual cores.
- They interpret x86 instructions into microcode, and have various resources available at their disposal.
- Marketing just spins it regarding SMT and CMT.
- Compared to Athlon K7 the CMT on the AMD FX series would have AMD's own engineers calling it a tri-core processor with CMT. (Scales better than SMT, but each core is weaker overall, so the potential scaling barely covers the loss).

Some x86/x64 cores are just far more complete than others... I mean gaming with half an FPU per pair of otherwise 'nearly' complete CPU cores?
- That is madness
- No.... this is SPARCaaaaaaa (joke, no-one will get it).
- No really, it is madness.

But wow, eight cores!
- Looks nice on the box and sells low transistor count cores to the end consumer, mostly game console buyers.

Here's a real 8 core processor:
- http://ark.intel.com/products/64596/

 

[8350rocks]

All cores on processors that are later than 6th generation x86 are logical or virtual cores.
- They interpret x86 instructions into microcode, and have various resources available at their disposal.
- Marketing just spins it regarding SMT and CMT.
- Compared to Athlon K7 the CMT on the AMD FX series would have AMD's own engineers calling it a tri-core processor with CMT. (Scales better than SMT, but each core is weaker overall, so the potential scaling barely covers the loss).

Some x86/x64 cores are just far more complete than others... I mean gaming with half an FPU per pair of otherwise 'nearly' complete CPU cores?
- That is madness
- No.... this is SPARCaaaaaaa (joke, no-one will get it).
- No really, it is madness.

But wow, eight cores!
- Looks nice on the box and sells low transistor count cores to the end consumer, mostly game console buyers.

Here's a real 8 core processor:
- http://ark.intel.com/products/64596/

You're discussing abstraction, but you can still compile to assembly code, so no...the only "virtual or logical" cores in modern CPUs are still HTT register stacks. You do realize the differences between K7 and current gen FX are the following, right?

-K7 had 1x64 bit FMAC FPU per core, FX has 2x128 bit FMAC FPU per module (100% more FMAC processing power per core)

-K7 had 3 ALUs per core, while FX has 2 ALUs per core (small advantage to 4 core vs. 4 core scenarios)

-FX scales far better with multiple threads, last time I checked 8x2 ALUs > 4x3 ALUs.

Additionally...there are not "complete" or "nearly complete" cores. There are cores and FPUs, as there always was, you just don't think in terms of modular scaling. (LOL@SPARC)

Low transistor count cores has no bearing on performance. Look at ARM vs. Bay Trail. High end ARM chips like the Snapdragon 800 kill the Bay Trail line across the board with significantly lower transistor counts per core...

As for a "real" 8 core, yes, that is one...

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-model-number-comparison.aspx

There are several listed on that page too...want to see a 16 core monster? I can show you one of those too...