EPYC 7261 vs FX-6300
Primary details
Comparing FX-6300 and EPYC 7261 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1693 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 49 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.56 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) | 14 June 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $132 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-6300 and EPYC 7261 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 cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 6 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 25 |
| L1 cache | 288 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6144 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8192 KB | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 81 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.15 V - Max: 1.3875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-6300 and EPYC 7261 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 configuration | 1 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 170 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6300 and EPYC 7261. 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 FX-6300 and EPYC 7261 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6300 and EPYC 7261. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 170.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6300 and EPYC 7261.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 14 June 2018 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 8 |
| Threads | 6 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 170 Watt |
FX-6300 has 78.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7261, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 33.3% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between FX-6300 and EPYC 7261. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that FX-6300 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7261 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6300 and EPYC 7261, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
