Phenom II X6 1100T or FX 6300

[lazyboy947]

My friend is looking to build a new pc, and hes set on the 990fx sabertooth, but cant decide on the processor. Price isnt an issue, but hes cant decide on the 1100t or the fx 6300. He has an issue with the module thing that amd used on bulldozer and piledriver. Hes not to sure on 6 core based on modules or 6 physical cores. If someone can give some info on this would appriciate. This is not an upgrade from the x6 to fx but a new purchase.

 

[unksol]

The 1100T has been sold out for a long long time. So?

Anyway, clock for clock they are very close, but the FX6300 will overclock much higher making it the better choice. And the only one in production/for sale

If you care for a read.
www.overclock.net/t/1332199/amd-fx-6300-x6-4-2ghz-vs-my-1055t-4-2ghz-what-is-the-best-for-gaming

Google is your friend.

 

[lazyboy947]

Thanks for the link and ill come to a conclusion that there similar in benchmarks as the other wins in different things, but at this point still wondering on the difference in performance from modules to the physical cores. I tried gaming on my bro in laws 8150 with a 6870 on bf3, against my x6 and 6770, and noticed more choppy gameplay with the fx and 6870 at the same resolution and settings.

With the 1100t being sold out, he'd be buying from a friend who got a 8350 for similar price to the fx 6300.

Yes i know google search helps, but id prefer not to sit and read forums and some people argue on intel or amd, or ask for myself and hopefully get someone with a direct answer or something helpful. And yes im lazy enough to not want to read other posts lol. Not trying to be mean but not a fan of obvious replies.

 

[unksol]

if you don't want to educate yourself there's not a lot of sense asking. Just my two cents. especially if you want to get into modules vs. cores. Toms and anandtech both have detailed articles on the difference. But, basically the phenoms have 6 complete and separate cores. The FX modules share the front end, and the floating point module when they need to do a 256Bit floating point operations. They have 2 integer cores in each module.

This means there is less duplicated hardware but per core performance takes a hit. Bulldozer was worse than phenom II and BF3 multiplayer hits the CPU hard. Piledriver worked on the front end, performance went up to be very close to phenom II at the same clock, and it can clock higher, so will generally win.

I'd say if he's getting a good deal x6, same price FX. But I'm waiting for steamroller as my phenom II x4 runs everything, including BF3, just fine

 

[Scott_D_Bowen]

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7

 

[NiBlade]

if you don't want to educate yourself there's not a lot of sense asking. Just my two cents. especially if you want to get into modules vs. cores. Toms and anandtech both have detailed articles on the difference. But, basically the phenoms have 6 complete and separate cores. The FX modules share the front end, and the floating point module when they need to do a 256Bit floating point operations. They have 2 integer cores in each module.

This means there is less duplicated hardware but per core performance takes a hit. Bulldozer was worse than phenom II and BF3 multiplayer hits the CPU hard. Piledriver worked on the front end, performance went up to be very close to phenom II at the same clock, and it can clock higher, so will generally win.

I'd say if he's getting a good deal x6, same price FX. But I'm waiting for steamroller as my phenom II x4 runs everything, including BF3, just fine

if he doesnt want to educate himself? he came to this forum to educate himself. lose the attitude you piece of shit.