Tuesday, December 15th 2015

AMD Intros FX-6330 Black Edition Six-core Processor

by
btarunr
 Discuss (49 Comments)
AMD fleshed out its sub-$150 desktop CPU lineup with the new FX-6330, a socket AM3+ six-core chip based on the 32 nm "Vishera" silicon, which is priced at $109. At this price, it will take on the entry-level Core i3 and Pentium dual-core chips from Intel. This chip offers out of the box clocks of 3.60 GHz, and a maximum TurboCore frequency of 4.20 GHz. Its six cores are spread across three "Piledriver" modules. It features a total of 6 MB of L2, and 8 MB of L3 caches. The integrated memory controller supports dual-channel DDR3-1866 memory. Its TDP is rated at 95W.
Source: PCPop

Related News

Add your own comment

49 Comments on AMD Intros FX-6330 Black Edition Six-core Processor

#26
Zeki
Intel should restart selling i5-2500k than! It's older and better than fx-6300.
Single Molt 2011 Edition i5-2500k.
Posted on Reply
#27
suraswami
cdawallMost users couldn't care less what the CPU is that is in their PC. If the task they want to accomplish happens they just move on.



If they removed the GPU I bet they could have kept a 95w TDP, but I honestly don't know if that is possible on a normal FM2+ board.
Remove the GPU and make a dual socket FM2+? that way I can get 4 modules?:D
Posted on Reply
#28
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
suraswamiRemove the GPU and make a dual socket FM2+? that way I can get 4 modules?:D
They have a server version now. They should just quad socket it and say to hell with things.
Posted on Reply
#29
suraswami
a server version with FM2+? where?
Posted on Reply
#30
thekaidis
I think the more important question is what on earth is in that enormous box? Are they shipping this with a CLC as well?
Posted on Reply
#31
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
suraswamia server version with FM2+? where?
Server version of AM1* I am a big fan of the jaguar cores...they just need to be scaled.
Posted on Reply
#32
suraswami
cdawallServer version of AM1* I am a big fan of the jaguar cores...they just need to be scaled.
AM1, yeah hope they release a 8 core version at 25w!!
Posted on Reply
#33
xorbe
"Wow $110 is kinda pricey for that cooler, but at least it comes with a free cpu."
Posted on Reply
#34
Ruru
S.T.A.R.S.
My oc'd G3258 kills this.
Posted on Reply
#36
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
This is how AMD PR dept Played this Realese
3 core's on my wagon and i'm just rolling along The Cherokee are after me
Posted on Reply
#37
Batou1986
Why I bought my 8320 for $100 2 years ago
Posted on Reply
#38
Jism
Technically, it is a nice small upgrade on a abandoned AM3+ platform. I wonder how it competes core to core against a Thuban X6. I happend to have a Thuban X6 running at 4GHz as well.

Nothing wrong with a Thuban, at least it is the fastest IPC on the complete bulldozer circus.
Posted on Reply
#39
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
9700 ProMy oc'd G3258 kills this.
With both overclocked to the max? Ehh in single thread absolutely, but multithreading is a bit different of a game.
Posted on Reply
#40
dj-electric
Just wanted to go ahead and remind people that LGA1151 non-K overclocking is a thing. A new thing atm.
Posted on Reply
#41
calvin1702
WTF is this? I am using an old school stuff i7-3770 which is launched at Q2' 2012, yet my processor is 22nm with 77TDP.

And now in Q4' 2015 (almost Q1' 2016), AMD told me they are coming up with 32nm with 95TDP, genius!
Posted on Reply
#42
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
calvin1702WTF is this? I am using an old school stuff i7-3770 which is launched at Q2' 2012, yet my processor is 22nm with 77TDP.

And now in Q4' 2015 (almost Q1' 2016), AMD told me they are coming up with 32nm with 95TDP, genius!
AMD and Intel TDP's do not compare...
Posted on Reply
#43
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
""Um""
cdawallAMD and Intel TDP's do not compare...
Correct me if i am wrong ( and i am sometimes snigger )
the last time you could directly compare An AMD processor to its Intel Equivalent was a long lime ago
We are talking


Verse
Posted on Reply
#44
Basard
Hm... My chip was like 99 bucks six years ago. Unlocked to quad core. 3.8Ghz without even trying.
At the same time, my wife's quad-core Phenom II was 40 bucks more.

I'm still waiting for some progress lol....

It looks like the switch to APUs should have come 10 years later than it did. (And no, I'm not thinking that this FX chip is an APU.)
Posted on Reply
#45
NdMk2o1o
Think you'll find the AMD Athlons and x64's pissed all over the higher clocked, hotter and more power hungry Nutburst P4's.... though thats a long time ago as well in itself..
dorsetknob""Um""


Correct me if i am wrong ( and i am sometimes snigger )
the last time you could directly compare An AMD processor to its Intel Equivalent was a long lime ago
We are talking


Verse
There's been progress, the 8 core/4 module whatever you want to call them that replaced their "true" quad core Phenoms are miles better than them, just unfortunate that Intel's are also miles better than AMD's top CPU's
BasardHm... My chip was like 99 bucks six years ago. Unlocked to quad core. 3.8Ghz without even trying.
At the same time, my wife's quad-core Phenom II was 40 bucks more.

I'm still waiting for some progress lol....

It looks like the switch to APUs should have come 10 years later than it did. (And no, I'm not thinking that this FX chip is an APU.)
Posted on Reply
#46
Disparia
Not too long ago a number of new AMD 970 boards were released in the $60-75 USD range. Possibly why AMD put out this chip, as a good companion for those boards in a value-build. I'm not saying it's the best value-build out there when compared to an Intel offering, just theorizing AMD's decision.
Posted on Reply
#47
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
NdMk2o1oThink you'll find the AMD Athlons and x64's pissed all over the higher clocked, hotter and more power hungry Nutburst P4's.... though thats a long time ago as well in itself..
They were not directly comparable at least in my example you could swap your AMD 486 for a Intel 486 for a direct comparison using
SAME
memory
Motherboard
Ps that is the only way you can directly compare AMD to Intel (or them to Cyrex)

Progress means its now an approximate comparison or as AMD went/ Say ( PR Peformance rated lieing sales fafh )
Posted on Reply
#48
NdMk2o1o
dorsetknobThey were not directly comparable at least in my example you could swap your AMD 486 for a Intel 486 for a direct comparison using
SAME
memory
Motherboard
Ps that is the only way you can directly compare AMD to Intel (or them to Cyrex)

Progress means its now an approximate comparison or as AMD went/ Say ( PR Peformance rated lieing sales fafh )
Yea I kinda read your post again afterwards though CBA editing my original post :p :toast:
Posted on Reply
#49
Basard
NdMk2o1oThere's been progress, the 8 core/4 module whatever you want to call them that replaced their "true" quad core Phenoms are miles better than them, just unfortunate that Intel's are also miles better than AMD's top CPU's
Eh, I suppose you're right.... I could upgrade to an FX chip and see some performance. Maybe I should. But to spend so much for so "little" improvement... If I didn't need a new motherboard too I probably would.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 18th, 2024 07:22 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts