FX-6300 vs EPYC 7351P

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7351P
2017
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
16.80
+520%

EPYC 7351P outperforms FX-6300 by a whopping 520% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7351P and FX-6300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3971695
Place by popularitynot in top-10057
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.060.56
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency8.992.60
Architecture codenameNaples (2017−2018)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date20 June 2017 (7 years ago)23 October 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$750$132

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7351P has 982% better value for money than FX-6300.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7351P and FX-6300 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads326
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz3.8 GHz
Multiplier24no data
L1 cache1.5 MB288 KB
L2 cache8 MB6144 KB
L3 cache64 MB (shared)8192 KB
Chip lithography14 nm32 nm
Die size213 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data71 °C
Number of transistors19200 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.15 V - Max: 1.3875 V

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7351P and FX-6300 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketTR4AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)155 W, 170 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7351P and FX-6300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7351P and FX-6300 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7351P and FX-6300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR3-1866
Maximum memory size2 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth170.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7351P and FX-6300.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes128no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 7351P 16.80
+520%
FX-6300 2.71

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

EPYC 7351P 25657
+520%
FX-6300 4137

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

EPYC 7351P 630
+38.5%
FX-6300 455

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

EPYC 7351P 4738
+231%
FX-6300 1432

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.80 2.71
Recency 20 June 2017 23 October 2012
Physical cores 16 6
Threads 32 6
Chip lithography 14 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 95 Watt

EPYC 7351P has a 519.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 166.7% more physical cores and 433.3% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

FX-6300, on the other hand, has 63.2% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 7351P is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-6300 in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7351P is a server/workstation processor while FX-6300 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7351P and FX-6300, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7351P
EPYC 7351P
AMD FX-6300
FX-6300

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.4 7 votes

Rate EPYC 7351P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 3998 votes

Rate FX-6300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7351P or FX-6300, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.