Install 64 bit system processor fx 4300

Overclocking in 3 actions through BIOS up to 4GHz, +10-15 FPS in games. At medium-high settings, GTA 5 and 2x MSAA in combination with a GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 750 2GB + 8GB video card displays at least 40 fps.
Cooling is normal, a radiator with a cooler, after overclocking, under load, no more than 45 degrees.

Not yet.

For the money, that's it, and it doesn't pull badly)

Complain Did the review help? 15 4

1. Vishera. Excellent overclocking potential. I overclocked to 4.7 GHz at a voltage of v.1.4500 (there is no need to raise the voltage further, although you can go up to 1.5, and the limit is 1.55, you can’t go higher), I passed the OSST Perestroika stress test. With v.1.2750 operates at a frequency of 4.1 GHz. It is better to set with handles, and not with a machine gun.
2. Easily copes with any tasks that a 4-core can handle and in which it can easily blunt Intel i5. For those who are interested, I can send links to discussions about why the Intel architecture is a bit of a failure for serious work. And for a frivolous one, almost any processor will do.
3. In games with optimized 4 or more threads at the level of junior non-overclocked i5 (ivie bridge), it was compared without overclocking. In overclocking, slightly outperforms these i5. In poorly optimized 2-threaded games at the level of u3. There you have to accelerate.
4. Low temperature, overclocked to 4.7 GHz 53-54 degrees in games and up to 65 in OSST (dipcool frostwin cooler, taken for growth). Unlike the terrifyingly hot Haswells.
5. Solder under the cover, in contrast to the Ivy bridge and Haswell, i.e. such a specific procedure as “scalping” will never be needed by this processor at all. Unlike the latest Intel processors.
6. Now it is already quite inexpensive (I took it for 3800 rubles, like, about six months ago).
7. Energy consumption in idle time is lower than Intel's i5 (except for Haswell, it is approximately on the same level with it).

1. Consumption in the load of synthetics is higher than that of Intel processors, in the load of games the difference is small.
2. In failed old single-threaded games, default performance leaves much to be desired, overclocking is required there.

For trouble-free overclocking of this processor, you need a motherboard with 4 + 1 power phases and radiators on mosfets with a 970/990X/990FX chipset. Some with 760G can also be driven, but not all of them, and performance will be slightly worse than with 970 chipset and higher. But how much worse do not know.

Complain Did the review help? 48 15

I won’t go into details, but there really are advantages, first of all, the horsepower of this processor, at 100% synthetic load in a stress test, is able to perform many very complex tasks without brakes! I didn’t believe it!, vaunted core 5, it just hangs in this mode!, if you compare INTEL and AMD, it’s like an expensive and fast horse against a powerful heavy truck overtakes in a straight line, but as soon as a mass of complex and critical loads hangs, the handsome horse bends, and the heavy truck rush and rush and rush!

Yes, there are none, you won’t see the difference even with core 7, and take the processor only because of the best numbers in the test table well, that’s it ..... !

4.50 GHz 50 degrees, at a voltage of 1.416v, with a properly installed TITAN DC-K8M925B/R/CU35,95mm. Passed 6 hour 100% stress test in AIDA64 Extreme Edition v.2.80.2300 without fail

Complain Did the review help? 49 14

4 Cores, 4 Threads, good performance for the money, easy to chase, costs with GAMMAX 200 42 in idle 50 in stress test is excellent, 4Ghz TurboCore frequency, competes well with the i3 line and is much cheaper) You can put GTX 960 video cards with it and R9 270X, which will give good performance, I think it’s a great replacement for my old intel core duo E8400 Wolfdale 3Ghz, I’m happy with the new items on it, the AM3 + socket is old of course, but there is an upgrade to the FX 83XX series, but for ordinary users and who loves play the processor for the eyes, in general, I advise everyone to take it, if you have money, then take the FX 6300, or rather the FX 8300 ...

Is that the price (

I have been using it for half a year now, everything is fine, I played Watch Dogs, Crysys 3, etc. MAX 60% loaded everything was fine, I want to buy dropsy and drive it to 4.6 GHz, an excellent stone for my money, Windows rated it at 7.3 on nominal frequencies 3.8 Ghz

New 2012 and older models compared to direct and indirect competitors

We already got acquainted with the top processor of the Vishera family in mid-autumn, but AMD's assortment for Socket AM3+ was not limited to only this one: more affordable representatives of the new microarchitecture, and very different ones, also went on sale. For testing, two "really junior" processors are of the greatest interest: FX-6300 and FX-4300. The first is a kind of exotic: six computation threads are found only in AMD products, so comparing this approach with more traditional ones for the assortment of both companies is always interesting. And the FX-4300 is interesting because it is the youngest member of the new family for this platform. Moreover, it is worth noting that the range of junior “bulldozers” was noticeably expanded this year, so that on the official website of the company there are already four two-module models for AM3 +, although there are five of them on sale. We previously tested only two, so it makes sense to dwell on this family in detail. And on the updated FX-6000, of course. But let's leave the FX-8320 for the future - it is too similar to the studied FX-8350, differing from the latter only in clock frequencies. And the price, of course, which makes this particular model extremely attractive for those who are interested in older AMD models. As a result, this processor is not so easy to "grab" in the distribution network, which is especially noticeable during the pre-New Year's hype. This turned out to be the second reason why this processor will be tested later. Moreover, we repeat once again, its performance will not add anything significantly new to the existing knowledge: like the top model, the 8320 is a competitor to the Core i5 in price, sometimes outperforming the last family in performance in multi-threaded tasks, but inferior to it in energy efficiency and single-thread performance . But what the updated FX-4000 and FX-6000 lines can offer the user is a less studied question. That's what we'll take care of.

Test stand configuration

There are four dual-module models on the AMD website, although there are actually five of them. The “secret” FX-4200 stirred up the public at one time, since preliminary leaks mistakenly endowed it with 8 MiB of L2 cache, which is only possible with all four modules working. But how to get four "cores"? Yes, it's very simple - by disabling halves in the modules, and not half of the modules as a whole. Such a mutant, of course, would be an extremely interesting product: a doubled (compared to other FX-4000) number of SIMD blocks would allow it to compete on equal terms with the top family in non-integer tasks, losing to the latter only in integer multithreading, but gaining in price. In fact, the processor turned out to be the same as the rest of the models in the line. And the strangest thing in it - in terms of clock frequencies, it is significantly inferior to the lower-numbered FX-4170 (the starting one is the lowest among the FX-4000), but it has an equally impressive heat pack. On the other hand, the later appearance of this model allows us to hope that some improvements have been made to the crystal, so that the performance of the device will not be as sad as it seems at first glance.

The same can be extended to the FX-4130, but this model also has the L3 volume halved. Although just such a “cutoff” is very logical - it was just the full volume of L3 in two-modules that was strange. Why only now? Apparently, there was much less marriage in cash in Zambezi than in cores, so the required volumes of the latter accumulated only a year later. But the cache of this processor (like all "small-module" models with a TDP of 125 W) operates at an increased clock frequency of 2.2 GHz (rather than 2 GHz), and the frequencies are higher than those of the FX-4100. In general, the model can be quite interesting, subject to adequate prices. It will allow us, firstly, to understand how the decrease in L3 affects the performance of junior “bulldozers”, and secondly, exactly the same configuration is characteristic of (so far) the only representative of the two-module Vishera. Only the frequencies are slightly different, but on the FX-4130, the new AMD lineup is more similar than on other models of the previous generation.

The three-module family was also replenished with one model, but there are only two old people here. And the FX-6300 looks very interesting - in any case, much more attractive than the FX-4300. At least because nothing was "cut off" to it: in the new generation, three-module processors have the full volume of L3. In terms of performance characteristics, the new model falls exactly between the FX-6100 and FX-6200, but don't forget about improved cores, which should lead to greater efficiency at lower frequencies. But this model favorably differs from the FX-6200 in less voracity. In a word, the processor may be of interest to many who lack four computation threads, but finances do not allow getting eight, at least in the performance of AMD.

With whom to compare? We decided to take four processors from AMD products. Firstly, the fastest Trinity - it has the same two Piledriver modules as in the FX-4300, but no L3 cache at all. The latter did not prevent the processor from fighting on equal terms with the FX-4170, but what happens with an equal architecture is an interesting question. Another model for FM2 (Athlon X4 750K) does not pretend to such heights, but, in fact, it is positioned in the same segment as the younger FX: inexpensive entry-level gaming computers. And, in principle, the new Athlons are competitive with this approach - as we know, the Athlon X4 740 is already equal to the FX-4100 in the overall standings, significantly outperforming it in price. In fact, this alignment should put an end to all FX-4000 of the previous generation, but the appearance of the FX-4300 can make the evening less languid :)

It is also extremely interesting to compare the new FX with the old Phenom II. Unfortunately, it has its own difficulties - the company has set prohibitive prices for older models, and the Phenom II X6 is generally extremely difficult to find in retail chains. Therefore, we decided to use two recently tested processors - Phenom II X4 955 and X6 1075T, since the first one is very cheap and is still on sale, and the second one, as a benchmark for assessing progress in the FX-6000 family, will suit us no worse than any other X6.

There are difficulties in the selection of adequate competitors from Intel. Therefore, we decided to pick up inadequate ones - almost "from the bulldozer". We need the Core i3 in any case - they overlap with the FX-4000 in terms of prices, and the devices are similar in logic. We took one of the slowest models on the old Sandy Bridge core (2120) and the fastest both in general and on the new one in particular (3240). Core i5 is in all forms more expensive than any "small-module" AMD processors, but some kind of comparison with them is needed. To make it more interesting, we took the results of the Core i5-2300, the slowest quad-core processor for the LGA1155 (except for power-efficient modifications). It has long been outdated and is not supplied, but it is suitable as a kind of guideline - in this case, the qualitative, not the quantitative, aspect is important for us. Since modern Core i5 models still do not intersect with the FX-6000 in terms of prices, so there is no direct competition between these families, but indirect- curious: suddenly there are already direct intersections in terms of performance. In other words, can there be such areas of activity where six AMD "cores" can compete with four (not new, but relatively modern) Intel cores or old six from the same AMD? Well, for this we just need the slowest Core i5 and the average Phenom II X6.

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups, and show the average result for a group of tests/applications on the diagrams (for details on the testing methodology, see a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points, for 100 points the performance of the reference test system, the site of the sample of 2011, is taken. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and video card () are standard for all tests of the “main line” and can only be changed as part of special studies. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are shown both in converted points and in "natural" form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

A low-threaded group of tests, perfectly suited for Core i3, but leaving Phenom II out of the game. At the same time, it is quite favorable to the younger Piledriver configurations, towering over the “Zambezian swamp”. Quite gloomy: only the FX-4170 can be considered the only bright spot in it, which quickly fades if you remember its price and, to put it mildly, the TDP level that is not very adequate for dual-module processors. And with all this, the processor managed to defeat only Trinity, but not Vishera. But the Vishera is also different - if the FX-4300 is only equal to 4170 and slightly outperforms the A10-5800K, then the 6300 is more convincing. Let low-threaded applications and not his path.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

We wrote more than once that these programs are susceptible to cache memory, however, as we see, they are not interested in L3 of the latest architectures - either it is too slow, or L2 is enough. Well, there are almost no advantages of the new microarchitecture over the old one. More precisely, there is, but not much - 4300/6300 are similar in performance to 4170/6200, but with a thermal package at the level of 4100/6100. It is also a peculiar achievement, especially interesting for the FX-6300: this processor is faster than the Phenom II X4 or Core i3. But the FX-4300, in turn, does not inspire much desire to purchase - cheaper solutions for FM2 look more interesting;)

Packing and unpacking

For obvious reasons, archivers are extremely sensitive to the reduction in the amount of cache memory, which, however, is quite noticeably compensated by the improvements of the new microarchitecture. That is, if the old FX-4130 is inferior even to the Athlon X4 750K, then the FX-4300 overtakes most of the "bulldozer" 4000s, all processors for FM2, and junior Intel solutions too. But, of course, the FX-6300 looks the most advantageous, in which nothing has been cut compared to its predecessors - it is 7% faster than the more voracious FX-6200. And it was he who turned out to be the leader of today's testing in this group of tests.

Audio encoding

It is noteworthy that if the old six-core processors were consistently lagging behind the even older six-core ones, the FX-6300 is only ahead of the two fastest Phenom II X6, but the 1075T is already quite capable of it. All in all, a little more, a little more and everything will be fine: AMD is no stranger to "squeezing out" drop by drop from each new architecture all its potential capabilities. In those cases, of course, when such a goal is set - once again the FX-6300 pleases with the results, but the FX-4300, which is unable to overtake the A10-5800K, causes only bewilderment.

Compilation

The cache is important, and, as we can see, it's primarily the capacity, not the frequency: the FX-4130 is far behind the 4170 and 4200 with the same UnCore frequency. But this pair stays on the same level, despite the higher frequencies of the first one, and they are exactly equal to the FX-4300, which was not prevented by either the reduction in L3 volume or its lower frequency - the new microarchitecture is better. Also, this trio outperformed all Core i3s, and all FX-6000s also coped with the Core i5-2300, although in general we cannot call this group of tests successful for the new AMD architecture because of the old Phenom II X6 1075T reproachfully towering over everyone. And the fact that the (already) budget "sale" Phenom II X4 955 not only easily defeated all dual-module models, but also approached the three-module models more strongly than moved away from the two-module ones, is also a kind of silent reproach to the company's engineers. On the other hand, "sales" are very limited in time, and if we consider only modern processors priced at $ 100-150, then the FX-6300 is already the clear leader here, able to compete with junior Core i5 models (including modern , and not the year before last), "living" "a floor above".

Mathematical and engineering calculations

But on the low-threaded code, the “construction equipment” may be inferior to Intel solutions, but it looks good against the background of Phenom II. But in different ways: if the FX-6300 turned out to be the fastest of today's participants (from the AMD range, of course), then the FX-4300 is convincing only against the backdrop of a "swamp", such as 4100/4130/4200. He, of course, managed to get ahead of both the FX-4170 and both models under FM2, but the victory can hardly be considered other than purely nominal. Now, if the developers, at least, didn’t “cut off” the cache memory, everything could turn out a little better, but in this situation, there is no incentive to pay extra for FX - Athlon is much cheaper, and A8 / A10 is “loaded” are equipped with a good (for this area of ​​\u200b\u200buse) graphics core.

Raster graphics

As we have already written more than once, the needs of applications included in this group are different, but on average they gravitate more to a small number of fast computation threads than to a large number of slow ones. This is especially noticeable by the fact that the younger "old" Core i5 failed to overtake not only the older, but also the average Core i3 of "its" generation. On the other hand, there is also an ACDSee batch mode in the list of executable tests, where the cores are not superfluous. In general, in the end, we can praise the FX-6300, which, on average, reached the level of the mentioned Core i3 / i5. But the FX-4300, lagging behind it by 10%, once again did not inspire. Why? Yes, because of the same - its performance is only slightly higher than the older models of the A-series and even Athlon, which in terms of price look like much more attractive purchases.

But as far as "clean" architecture is concerned, Piledriver is welcome. In both guises - both Trinity and Vishera: today both of them are the fastest AMD solutions in their respective areas. And even the "uninspiring" FX-4300 managed to catch up with the FX-6200! With a special, let us recall, "steroidal" version of the three-module processor, which stands out with a raised (from the point of view of modernity) TDP level, which was the result of working at frequencies close to the limit for Zambezi. And the budget Athlon X4 750K only lags behind such overfed fighters of the previous generation. "Hooking on", of course, this FX-4300, but adding points to the treasury of the new microarchitecture.

Vector graphics

It has long been noted that these two programs do not like the new AMD architecture, but as it turned out in the fall, this applies to Bulldozer to a greater extent than to Piledriver. Indeed, in the year before last, none of the models could catch up with even the very old Phenom II X4 955, which, by the will of fate, had already moved to the budget segment. As for the new processors for AM3+, the FX-4300 is already capable of this. On the other hand, we still can't help but complain about its results: the difference between the FX-6300 and FX-6200 is greater than the difference between the FX-4300 and the FX-4170. Of course, one can object to this that 6200 was simply much less convincing against the background of 6100 than 4170 compared to 4100, but the final result is important.

Video encoding

And here are the troubles - that 4300, that 6300 lagged behind their "steroid" predecessors. In many respects, however, due to the fact that the latter, indeed, were pumped with hormones in the form of a clock frequency in full load mode: it is difficult to win back about 10% of the advantage. Although the 6300 succeeded in most tests, and the 4300 almost succeeded: the "stumbling block" for both turned out to be quite an ancient XviD, where, as we have seen not for the first time, the Piledriver is inferior to the Bulldozer. On the other hand, even under such an inconvenient set of circumstances, the 4300/6300 do not look as bad as it seems at first glance compared to the previous generation - they are more economical, so if this factor is taken into account, the loss turns into a victory. And if we bring the price to the question, everything becomes even more interesting: in fact, the FX-6300 competes not with the old six-core AMD and Core i5, but with the Core i3.

Office software

Nothing new - single-threaded performance (which is important here) has grown in the new family, which allows you to get ahead of your predecessors, but not keep up with modern Intel processors. On the other hand, the Core i5 is also not in the best position here, especially if we take the younger model two years ago, so the FX-6300 was able to overtake it. A small one, but still a victory.

Java

And here it is the same, but already more weighty - after all, for the applications of the previous group, all today's participants are redundant, and they are only partially used by them. SPECjvm2008, on the other hand, supports multithreading quite well, so it can load any modern processor with work. True, he prefers full-format kernels of the "old model", but he is not indifferent to other ways of increasing the number of simultaneously executing computation threads. So the fact that the FX-6200 overtakes the (albeit outdated and discontinued, but real) Core i5 was already a good result. And having the same performance, but with less power consumption, the FX-6300 is even better.

Here again, the FX-4300 did not inspire, which is easily explained: the JVM is not too demanding on the total capacity of the cache memory, so the slow 4 MiB L3 does not allow you to get far away from the A10-5800K, which is completely devoid of such, even at the moments of partial loading of the execution units of the accelerating to a higher frequency. And the two-module novelty generally lags behind the FX-4170 - all frequencies are higher there. Naturally, it is difficult to compete with the new Core i3 in such conditions - only old models can overtake. But older processors for FM2 can do this too!

Games

Once again, F1 2010 showed its temper - in it, any "six-threaded" AMD processors show poor results. And only they - the old three-core or six-core Core i7 are deprived of such a problem, so it belongs to the features of the game engine. But not only that, by the way: a similar effect (albeit to a lesser extent) is observed in Aliens vs. Predator. In general, it is better not to draw parallels between the X4 and X6 families, but to evaluate them separately.

What are we coming to? The FX-6300 processor is interesting: under equal conditions it outperforms any Phenom II X6, and it is at least 5% ahead of the previous FX-6000 - a little, but not bad. But the FX-4300 is a strange model: this processor is the fastest among all AMD dual-module models, but... victory. And the result equal to the Core i3-2120 is a complete rout: at the time of writing, the second processor was cheaper, i.e. FX-4300 lacks even the trump card so beloved by AMD fans as the price. Moreover, this is his personal problem - the 6300 looks much better in games of "decent behavior".

Multitasking environment

New items again lag behind the factory-overclocked oldies, but they are not bad against the background of regular models. More precisely, the FX-4300 is nominally not bad (it was cut off too much), and the FX-6300 can be praised without prejudice. Even despite lagging behind the Phenom II X6 1075T, these are processors of different price classes. Core i5 is even more expensive, but some models of this line are slower. And the FX-6300 directly competes in price with the new Core i3, which, not for the first time, does not even give a chance at least for an honorable capitulation.

Total

If you take a look at the final diagram, and then look at the price list of any company selling computer components (more precisely, in the part where representatives of the FX-4000 line live), you might get the feeling that experienced pests have dug in somewhere in the depths of AMD for which the revolutionary tribunal cries. And it's not even that the new FX-4300 is just a little faster than the old FX-4170, but that both new and old processors of this family look pale against the background of cheaper FM2 models! In fact, at the time of writing, the FX-4300 was even more expensive than the A10-5800K, despite the fact that the A10 has an excellent (by integrated graphics standards) integrated video core. And this is with almost the same performance (a couple of percent - no difference), TDP level (95 and 100 W - almost the same), and the freedom of tuning (multipliers are unlocked for both models). But Athlon does not have video - so these processors are much cheaper, but not so much slower. Again - 750K can be overclocked without problems.

But if you think a little, there is a certain and considerable logic in this approach of the company. Last year, the FX-4000 family was interesting as the youngest and cheapest representatives of the new AMD architecture, which "lived" only on the AM3 + platform, but now it is also used in APUs. Therefore, it is necessary to somehow breed families by niches. Or not to breed, but to make one of the options exist only nominally. Actually, that's why the FX-4300 couldn't be fast: the FX-4170 needed it, but the new model didn't. Therefore, the cache memory was also cut down, and the frequencies were slightly “offended”: the maximum in single-threaded mode is only 4 GHz (like the Athlon X4 750K), while the A10-5800K in this mode is capable of overclocking up to 4.2 GHz, and FX-6300 up to 4.1 GHz. Well, the price was set at the level of the mentioned A10-5800K. Doesn't it remind you of anything? Yes - there is a Core i7-3820 processor in the Intel assortment, designed to serve as the cheapest solution for LGA2011, but in terms of its characteristics it is much inferior to the Core i7-3770 for a more mass platform. It's the same here: AMD is ready to sell cheap junior solutions for AM3+, but this does not mean that they are attractive for purchase, because "cheap" is only in comparison with faster models for the same platform. And it is generally difficult to make any serious claims to the FX-4130 and FX-4200 - in fact, this is just a disposal of the rejects accumulated during the production of the previous crystal. The second one does not officially go to retail at all and is not in the official list of processors on the site. The first one had to be invented only because there was still a defect in the cache memory area, so the original approach, while maintaining its full volume, regardless of the number of working modules, had to be corrected. But these "old novelties" from the point of view of a retail buyer, of course, cannot arouse any interest at all. Now, if one of the major manufacturers of finished computers offers system units for them at a good discount, that's another matter.

So, has AMD completely given up on inexpensive solutions for AM3+? No, no, and again no - it's just that this platform was "brought" out of the budget segment, leaving it in the mass segment. If two modules are enough for the buyer, he is invited to turn his attention to FM2. But if you need more, then for now you can choose from only one platform. And the company tried to emphasize its merits by setting a more than humane price for the junior three-module. The FX-6300 is not just an inexpensive processor: the surcharge relative to the FX-4300 is purely symbolic, but for it the buyer gets three, not two modules, a slightly higher maximum clock frequency and twice as much cache memory with the same thermal package. The increase in performance compared to the FX-6200 is not too great, but combined with a decrease in appetite, it already allows this model to stay at the level of junior (albeit not new) Core i5, mid-range Phenom II X6 and older Core i3 (on average - so-and-so the results strongly depend on the type of load, but this is no longer surprising in the modern world). Moreover, as mentioned above, there is direct price competition only with the latest family - six-core Phenom II and quad-core Core don't even drop below $150 in bulk. But with a multi-threaded load, the Core i3 models for the FX-6000 are not competitors, and in this family the FX-6300 is the best: the fastest and moderately (unlike the 6200) gluttonous.

It is clear that all of the above is only our interpretation of the facts, with which one can either agree or not. On the other hand, the built "picture of the world" is simple and logical, and all the facts fit into it. At the same time, it is difficult to explain the reasons for such a serious reduction in the FX-4300 in any other way. But all this is rather boring matter from the point of view of a simple buyer, who is more important What he can buy and how much, and not at all why everything is shaping up the way it is shaping up.

If you take this position of evaluation, the conclusions will be simple and short. The FX-4000 family has lost the status of a "starter" level for demonstrating a new microarchitecture - in fact, now it is only needed to dispose of a serious defect (companies) or as a temporary solution until the purchase of some older model from the FX-8000 line (customers). However, even in the latter capacity, these processors are of little interest, at least as long as there are remnants of the old Athlon II and Phenom II, which are cheaper (and not always slower), on sale. The “killer features” of the AM3 + platform at the moment should be considered the three-module family of AMD processors ( yes, yes, we also remember about processors with four modules, but in their case there is already direct competition - unlike). More precisely, its newest representative, in the face of the FX-6300. It is he who is by far the most successful compromise when choosing between price and performance. Especially in the case when performance is also of interest on a “compromise” set of software, i.e. mixed in terms of loads: when four computation threads are not enough, but there is no desire and opportunity to overpay for frequently idle functional blocks. In general, there are clear parallels with the Phenom II X3 in the same price segment as four years ago, but at a new level of technology.

Review and testing of the AMD FX-4300 processor

AMD has not pleased us with the release of processors for desktop configurations for a long time. No, there were, of course, APUs AMD Richland, AMD Kaveri and AMD Kabini, but we do not take them into account, since these are solutions of a slightly different level, and they are mainly intended for non-gaming systems. You can also recall the announcement of models with the AMD FX-9xxx index. But again, there is nothing radically new in them - the same AMD FX-8350, only with varying degrees of parameter optimization.

It would seem that such a situation should be deplorable for AMD's processor division. At least, this is what many skeptics think, who predict its closure from month to month. But what do we see in practice? Despite the fact that almost two years have passed since the announcement of models from the AMD Vishera series, they still “feel” great on the market, surrounded by competitors from the new Intel Haswell, Intel Haswell Refresh and Intel Devil's Canyon families. And here it's not only the attractive cost, but also the potential that was laid by the manufacturer back in the architecture AMD Bulldozer... We mean the concept of dual-core modules.Recently, developers, especially games, have finally begun to put into practice the advantages of parallel computing You don't have to go far for examples, because such well-known projects as Crysis 3 and BattleField 4 have made friends with multithreading quite well.And this is just the beginning...

Thus, AMD Vishera solutions, already "old" by the standards of the computer industry, continue to confidently hold their positions in the processor market, and, apparently, they do not even think of disappearing from store shelves in the near future.

Therefore, we gladly accepted the offer to test a 4-core model AMDFX-4300 , which many in Internet circles call nothing more than a "people's" processor.

Specification:

Packaging, scope of delivery and appearance

The AMD FX-4300 processor comes in a small cardboard box, decorated in the red and white colors typical of AMD products. The central place on the front panel is reserved for the AMD FX series logo. Under it, you can find the inscription "Black Edition", which, according to the company's policy, indicates the presence of an unlocked multiplier in this model. Also, from the information on the package, you can find out the main characteristics of the processor: the nominal clock frequency (3800 MHz), the number of cores (4) and the total amount of cache memory (8 MB).

The box contains:

• processor packed for extra protection in a plastic blister;
• cooler;
• user guide;
• AMD FX series logo sticker.

The AMD FX-4300 model belongs to the AMD Vishera family, so outwardly it is no different from its older counterparts that have previously visited our test lab: AMD FX-6350, AMD FX-8350 and AMD FX-9370. The heat-distributing cover bears the name of the series and the marking of the model. The countries where the crystal was grown (Germany) and where the final assembly of the processor took place (Malaysia) are also indicated. The arrangement of contacts on the back side corresponds to the Socket AM3+ processor socket.

Regular cooling system

The cooler that comes with the AMD FX-4300 processor has a fairly simple configuration: an aluminum heatsink with a square base to which four sections of fins are attached, and a low-profile fan. Considering the claimed 95W TDP, it's a little strange to see no copper elements here, let alone heatpipes.

Although compared to the standard cooling system for 65-watt AMD processors, this cooler (in the photo on the right) looks much more "solid".

A fairly efficient (8.4 W) 70 mm AVC DESC0715B2U fan based on a rolling bearing is used to blow the radiator fins. There is a 4-pin connector for connecting to the motherboard. The fan speed is controlled using the PWM method.

Analysis of technical characteristics

In normal operation, the speed of the AMD FX-4300 is 3800 MHz with a reference frequency of 200 MHz and a multiplier of "x19". At the time of taking the readings, the voltage on the core was 1.248 V.

In the dynamic overclocking mode using proprietary AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology, the multiplier increases by 1 point to the value of "x20". At the same time, the processor clock frequency increases to 4000 MHz, and the voltage to 1.332 V. For 6-core models, this value, as a rule, already exceeds 1.4 V.

Note that AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology is quite efficient and has several stages in which the processor frequency and voltage change depending on the load. In particular, in the case of AMD FX-4300 between 3800 MHz and 4000 MHz there is another intermediate state - 3900 MHz (voltage - 1.344 V, multiplier - "x19.5").

This graph shows the behavior of the processor under maximum load. As you can see, its frequency does not constantly stay at the level of 4000 MHz, but "floats" within 3400 - 4000 MHz. The supply voltage also changes - from 1.212 V to 1.356 V.

In idle mode, the multiplier is reduced to the value "x7", thereby lowering the frequency to 1400 MHz, and the voltage to 0.888 V.

The AMD FX-4300 cache is distributed as follows:

• cache memory of the first level L1: 16 KB for data with 4 channels of associativity and 64 KB for instructions with 2 channels of associativity for each of the 4 cores;
• L2 cache: 2 MB for each 2-core module with 16 channels of associativity;
• L3 cache: 4 MB for all cores with 32 associativity channels.

The DDR3 RAM controller operates in 2-channel mode and is guaranteed to support modules with a frequency of up to 1866 MHz.

Testing

When testing, we used the Stand for testing Processors No. 2

Choose what you want to compare AMD FX-4300 Turbo Core ON with:
Review Intel Pentium G3258
Review Intel Core i3-4130
AMD Athlon II x4 750K Turbo Core ON review
AMD FX-6350 Turbo ON review

First of all, we investigated the impact of AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology on computer performance. Disabling it leads to a drop in system performance by an average of 1%. Such a difference will definitely not be noticeable while working in everyday applications. On the other hand, disabling this option will have almost no effect on power consumption, and, accordingly, on processor heating. Therefore, whether or not to use AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology is up to you.

With an average price of $105, the AMD FX-4300 model falls into the $80-130 price segment, where its closest competitors from the "blue" side are the Intel Pentium G3258 and Intel Core i3-4130, and from the "red" side - AMD Athlon II X4 750K and AMD FX-6350. These solutions are distinguished by a fairly good combination of price and features, so they often appear in assemblies of mid-range systems.

Let's start the analysis of the test results obtained with a comparison with representatives of the camp of competitors. The Intel Pentium G3258 model lagged behind the AMD FX-4300 processor by an average of 13%, while the Intel Core i3-4130 outperformed it by 18%. In this case, the first will cost you $ 20 cheaper than the hero of the review, and the second, on the contrary, will cost you the same amount. Thus, when calculating the price/opportunity ratio, in all cases we will get approximately the same value.

As for the comparison of AMD FX-4300 with AMD Athlon II X4 750K and AMD FX-6350, the picture is similar. The AMD Athlon II X4 750K model loses about 10% to the tested solution, but at the same time costs $25 less. AMD FX-6350 confidently leaves behind AMD FX-4300 (by about 33%), however, its price tag is already almost $130.

As a result, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, the AMD FX-4300 has a pretty good balance of price and features. Secondly, it is located exactly in the middle of the $80 - $130 segment, where both processor manufacturers actually don't offer any other solutions. In other words, if you are willing to spend $105 on a CPU and not a cent more, then in this case the AMD FX-4300 simply has no competitors on the market.

Overclocking

As we wrote at the beginning of the review, this processor has an unlocked multiplier, which greatly simplifies its overclocking, and also allows you to achieve better results during this procedure.

By raising the multiplier to x24, we increased the speed of the AMD FX-4300 to 4800 MHz (+20% compared to the frequency in turbo mode), while the base frequency was fixed at around 200 MHz, and the voltage had to be increased to 1.512 V. In this mode, the processor passed the stress test in LinX 0.6.4 without errors. During the experiment, the maximum recorded temperature was 65°C (when using a bench cooler). In principle, the mark of 5000 MHz also submitted to this model. Working at this speed, she even passed several benchmarks. However, to ensure the stability of the entire system, it was still necessary to raise the supply voltage even higher, which led to the processor heating above 70°C. And according to information found on the Internet, it is this value that is the maximum permissible operating temperature for the AMD FX-4300 model. Therefore, we decided not to continue the experiment. The test results presented below correspond to overclocking the processor to 4800 MHz.

The average performance increase was just over 19%. Such an increase in speed will definitely be noticed by the user during operation, especially in gaming applications, so it makes sense to optimize the parameters of this processor. However, it should be borne in mind that the cooler will be subject to additional load, so you will have to get a good cooling system. The regular version for these purposes is no longer suitable.

By the way, with a figure of 4800 MHz, we could get into the top ten results of the official overclocking rating of the AMD FX-4300 model and even take 9th place there. And with a more serious cooling system, one could try to surpass the achievements of the Indonesian overclocker under the nickname X-BAY.

If we talk about the maximum overclocking result, then at the time of writing the review it is the mark of 7284.9 MHz, which was achieved by cooling the processor with liquid nitrogen. Please note that the voltage on it at the time of the experiment was 1.968 V. Thus, buying an AMD FX-4300, you, among other things, also get excellent overclocking potential - something that Intel processors from the middle price range so lack.

conclusions

Despite the fact that AMD Vishera processors have been on the computer components market for quite a long time, they still do not lose their relevance to this day. We made such a conclusion in a recent test of the 6-core AMD FX-6350 model. It is also valid for the 4-core.

At just over $100, this processor has pretty good performance, which is enough for entry-level or mid-range gaming configurations. It confidently outperforms competitors from the “blue” camp in the face of solutions from the Intel Pentium series, however, it still cannot compete on equal terms with the Intel Core i3. Although the average lag of 18% can be easily made up by optimizing the parameters. Excellent overclocking potential without exaggeration can be called perhaps the main advantage of the AMD FX-4300 model. It is unlikely that there will still be inexpensive processors on the market that can reach the mark of 5000 MHz, and with the use of conventional air cooling. Although, for the sake of justice, it should be noted that with such overclocking, you have to greatly increase the voltage, as a result of which an additional load is placed on the power subsystem and the cooler. However, it is not necessary to "squeeze all the juice" out of the AMD FX-4300, since even a frequency of 4800 MHz is enough to compete on equal terms with the Intel Core i3-4130.

Frankly speaking, it is difficult to find shortcomings in this solution, except that the TDP level is quite high (95 W) compared to its “classmates”.

So, if you're on a tight budget but still want to build a mid-range gaming system with a good headroom for future upgrades, then the AMD FX-4300 is a great buy.

10 years ago, the FX chip line was AMD's biggest hit. Since then, AMD has released several not-so-successful models and has continued to keep the FX alive. But when the company announced the entry-level Ryzen series a couple of years ago, it seemed like there was no place for old people here anymore. But AMD did the wiser thing by updating the FX chips and sending them to the budget segment.

One of the most attractive options in terms of price and quality ratio among the entire FX family is the FX-4300, which received the title of "people's" processor for 3-4 years. Today it is positioned as a workhorse, but don't let yourself be fooled, because it has the legs of a thoroughbred horse: productive even by today's standards, 4 cores with a clock speed of 3.8 GHz are automatically overclocked to 4 GHz, and 4 MB of L3 cache was the norm yesterday for the processor of the average price segment. Plus, the FX-4300 has an unlocked multiplier, making it much easier to overclock.

The foundation for a productive home PC

Perhaps the only minus of the processor is the vague prospects for updating. Although AMD encourages manufacturers to keep the AM3 socket in mind, everyone is looking towards the newer AM4, and there are not as many motherboards supporting the previous platform as they were a couple of years ago. Therefore, here and now, the FX-4300 is primarily good as the basis of a solid home / office computer, which is not required to perform resource-intensive tasks like video rendering or run demanding games.

And don't forget the games

However, all of the above does not mean that games are his kryptonite. In hits of the past generation like Batman: Arkham City, Battlefield 4 and Resident Evil 5, the FX-4300 paired with a GTX 980 caliber graphics card produces a stable 90-100 frames per second at high settings. Given that most people don't see much of a difference between Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 1 graphics, that's a great result. With very fresh games, everything is more difficult, since a lot depends on optimization in them. For example, if "Far Cry 5" at medium settings will work pretty fast, then "Project CARS 2" will noticeably slow down.

AMD has not pleased us with the release of processors for desktop configurations for a long time. No, there were, of course, APUs AMD Richland, AMD Kaveri and AMD Kabini, but we do not take them into account, since these are solutions of a slightly different level, and they are mainly intended for non-gaming systems. You can also recall the announcement of models with the AMD FX-9xxx index. But again, there is nothing radically new in them - the same AMD FX-8350, only with varying degrees of parameter optimization.

It would seem that such a situation should be deplorable for AMD's processor division. At least, this is what many skeptics think, who predict its closure from month to month. But what do we see in practice? Despite the fact that almost two years have passed since the announcement of models from the AMD Vishera series, they still “feel” great on the market, surrounded by competitors from the new Intel Haswell, Intel Haswell Refresh and Intel Devil's Canyon families. And here it's not only the attractive cost, but also the potential that was laid by the manufacturer back in the architecture AMD Bulldozer... We mean the concept of dual-core modules.Recently, developers, especially games, have finally begun to put into practice the advantages of parallel computing You don't have to go far for examples, because such well-known projects as Crysis 3 and BattleField 4 have made friends with multithreading quite well.And this is just the beginning...

Thus, AMD Vishera solutions, already "old" by the standards of the computer industry, continue to confidently hold their positions in the processor market, and, apparently, they do not even think of disappearing from store shelves in the near future.

Therefore, we gladly accepted the offer to test a 4-core model AMDFX-4300 , which many in Internet circles call nothing more than a "people's" processor.

Specification:

Packaging, scope of delivery and appearance

The AMD FX-4300 processor comes in a small cardboard box, decorated in the red and white colors typical of AMD products. The central place on the front panel is reserved for the AMD FX series logo. Under it, you can find the inscription "Black Edition", which, according to the company's policy, indicates the presence of an unlocked multiplier in this model. Also, from the information on the package, you can find out the main characteristics of the processor: the nominal clock frequency (3800 MHz), the number of cores (4) and the total amount of cache memory (8 MB).

The box contains:

• processor packed for extra protection in a plastic blister;
• cooler;
• user guide;
• AMD FX series logo sticker.

The AMD FX-4300 model belongs to the AMD Vishera family, so outwardly it is no different from its older counterparts that have previously visited our test lab: AMD FX-6350, AMD FX-8350 and AMD FX-9370. The heat-distributing cover bears the name of the series and the marking of the model. The countries where the crystal was grown (Germany) and where the final assembly of the processor took place (Malaysia) are also indicated. The arrangement of contacts on the back side corresponds to the Socket AM3+ processor socket.

Regular cooling system

The cooler that comes with the AMD FX-4300 processor has a fairly simple configuration: an aluminum heatsink with a square base to which four sections of fins are attached, and a low-profile fan. Considering the claimed 95W TDP, it's a little strange to see no copper elements here, let alone heatpipes.

Although compared to the standard cooling system for 65-watt AMD processors, this cooler (in the photo on the right) looks much more "solid".

A fairly efficient (8.4 W) 70 mm AVC DESC0715B2U fan based on a rolling bearing is used to blow the radiator fins. There is a 4-pin connector for connecting to the motherboard. The fan speed is controlled using the PWM method.

Analysis of technical characteristics

In normal operation, the speed of the AMD FX-4300 is 3800 MHz with a reference frequency of 200 MHz and a multiplier of "x19". At the time of taking the readings, the voltage on the core was 1.248 V.

In the dynamic overclocking mode using proprietary AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology, the multiplier increases by 1 point to the value of "x20". At the same time, the processor clock frequency increases to 4000 MHz, and the voltage to 1.332 V. For 6-core models, this value, as a rule, already exceeds 1.4 V.

Note that AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology is quite efficient and has several stages in which the processor frequency and voltage change depending on the load. In particular, in the case of AMD FX-4300 between 3800 MHz and 4000 MHz there is another intermediate state - 3900 MHz (voltage - 1.344 V, multiplier - "x19.5").

This graph shows the behavior of the processor under maximum load. As you can see, its frequency does not constantly stay at the level of 4000 MHz, but "floats" within 3400 - 4000 MHz. The supply voltage also changes - from 1.212 V to 1.356 V.

In idle mode, the multiplier is reduced to the value "x7", thereby lowering the frequency to 1400 MHz, and the voltage to 0.888 V.

The AMD FX-4300 cache is distributed as follows:

• cache memory of the first level L1: 16 KB for data with 4 channels of associativity and 64 KB for instructions with 2 channels of associativity for each of the 4 cores;
• L2 cache: 2 MB for each 2-core module with 16 channels of associativity;
• L3 cache: 4 MB for all cores with 32 associativity channels.

The DDR3 RAM controller operates in 2-channel mode and is guaranteed to support modules with a frequency of up to 1866 MHz.

Testing

When testing, we used the Stand for testing Processors No. 2

First of all, we investigated the impact of AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology on computer performance. Disabling it leads to a drop in system performance by an average of 1%. Such a difference will definitely not be noticeable while working in everyday applications. On the other hand, disabling this option will have almost no effect on power consumption, and, accordingly, on processor heating. Therefore, whether or not to use AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology is up to you.

With an average price of $105, the AMD FX-4300 model falls into the $80-130 price segment, where its closest competitors from the "blue" side are the Intel Pentium G3258 and Intel Core i3-4130, and from the "red" side - AMD Athlon II X4 750K and AMD FX-6350. These solutions are distinguished by a fairly good combination of price and features, so they often appear in assemblies of mid-range systems.

Let's start the analysis of the test results obtained with a comparison with representatives of the camp of competitors. The Intel Pentium G3258 model lagged behind the AMD FX-4300 processor by an average of 13%, while the Intel Core i3-4130 outperformed it by 18%. In this case, the first will cost you $ 20 cheaper than the hero of the review, and the second, on the contrary, will cost you the same amount. Thus, when calculating the price/opportunity ratio, in all cases we will get approximately the same value.

As for the comparison of AMD FX-4300 with AMD Athlon II X4 750K and AMD FX-6350, the picture is similar. The AMD Athlon II X4 750K model loses about 10% to the tested solution, but at the same time costs $25 less. AMD FX-6350 confidently leaves behind AMD FX-4300 (by about 33%), however, its price tag is already almost $130.

As a result, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, the AMD FX-4300 has a pretty good balance of price and features. Secondly, it is located exactly in the middle of the $80 - $130 segment, where both processor manufacturers actually don't offer any other solutions. In other words, if you are willing to spend $105 on a CPU and not a cent more, then in this case the AMD FX-4300 simply has no competitors on the market.

Overclocking

As we wrote at the beginning of the review, this processor has an unlocked multiplier, which greatly simplifies its overclocking, and also allows you to achieve better results during this procedure.

By raising the multiplier to x24, we increased the speed of the AMD FX-4300 to 4800 MHz (+20% compared to the frequency in turbo mode), while the base frequency was fixed at around 200 MHz, and the voltage had to be increased to 1.512 V. In this mode, the processor passed the stress test in LinX 0.6.4 without errors. During the experiment, the maximum recorded temperature was 65°C (when using a bench cooler). In principle, the mark of 5000 MHz also submitted to this model. Working at this speed, she even passed several benchmarks. However, to ensure the stability of the entire system, it was still necessary to raise the supply voltage even higher, which led to the processor heating above 70°C. And according to information found on the Internet, it is this value that is the maximum permissible operating temperature for the AMD FX-4300 model. Therefore, we decided not to continue the experiment. The test results presented below correspond to overclocking the processor to 4800 MHz.

The average performance increase was just over 19%. Such an increase in speed will definitely be noticed by the user during operation, especially in gaming applications, so it makes sense to optimize the parameters of this processor. However, it should be borne in mind that the cooler will be subject to additional load, so you will have to get a good cooling system. The regular version for these purposes is no longer suitable.

By the way, with a figure of 4800 MHz, we could get into the top ten results of the official overclocking rating of the AMD FX-4300 model and even take 9th place there. And with a more serious cooling system, one could try to surpass the achievements of the Indonesian overclocker under the nickname X-BAY.

If we talk about the maximum overclocking result, then at the time of writing the review it is the mark of 7284.9 MHz, which was achieved by cooling the processor with liquid nitrogen. Please note that the voltage on it at the time of the experiment was 1.968 V. Thus, buying an AMD FX-4300, you, among other things, also get excellent overclocking potential - something that Intel processors from the middle price range so lack.

conclusions

Despite the fact that AMD Vishera processors have been on the computer components market for quite a long time, they still do not lose their relevance to this day. We made such a conclusion in a recent test of the 6-core AMD FX-6350 model. It is also valid for the 4-core.

At just over $100, this processor has pretty good performance, which is enough for entry-level or mid-range gaming configurations. It confidently outperforms competitors from the “blue” camp in the face of solutions from the Intel Pentium series, however, it still cannot compete on equal terms with the Intel Core i3. Although the average lag of 18% can be easily made up by optimizing the parameters. Excellent overclocking potential without exaggeration can be called perhaps the main advantage of the AMD FX-4300 model. It is unlikely that there will still be inexpensive processors on the market that can reach the mark of 5000 MHz, and with the use of conventional air cooling. Although, for the sake of justice, it should be noted that with such overclocking, you have to greatly increase the voltage, as a result of which an additional load is placed on the power subsystem and the cooler. However, it is not necessary to "squeeze all the juice" out of the AMD FX-4300, since even a frequency of 4800 MHz is enough to compete on equal terms with the Intel Core i3-4130.

Article read 158078 times