# AMD FX6300. Leaving turbo core on or off at stock speed?



## goranpaa

Hi!

I'm new here.

I recently upgraded my rig with this processor among other hardware.

But I have a hard time deciding to have the turbo core mode on or off? I have no plans on overclocking for the time beeing btw.

I know how it works. But still wonder what will be the best setting. Especially for gaming?

Any tips would be appriciated.


----------



## spirit

Leave it on.


----------



## goranpaa

Hi!

Thanks for the ansver. Btw. should I have the Cool and quiet enabled at the same time or not? Or will the voltages etc. jump up and down too much then?


----------



## spirit

Just leave it all enabled if you don't plan to overclock.


----------



## goranpaa

Ok. thanks. I will do as you guys suggested. I'm glad you solved this for me. There will be no oc as long as the cpu still can do the job in a satisfying way.


----------



## Darren

Turbo basically overclocks the CPU on it's own as it needs more speed. This is within the normal parameters of the chip so doing this with the stock cooler is fine as it's designed to keep temperatures down at those speeds. Cool and Quiet does basically the opposite and downclocks the chip when it's not in use to keep it, well, cool and quiet.

Leaving both on is generally fine unless you have a temperature issue and need to disable turbo.


----------



## goranpaa

Denther said:


> Turbo basically overclocks the CPU on it's own as it needs more speed. This is within the normal parameters of the chip so doing this with the stock cooler is fine as it's designed to keep temperatures down at those speeds. Cool and Quiet does basically the opposite and downclocks the chip when it's not in use to keep it, well, cool and quiet.
> 
> Leaving both on is generally fine unless you have a temperature issue and need to disable turbo.



Thanks for enlighten me.

No, not a single temperature problem. The Gigabyte hardware monitor, says cpu temp = 22 C right now. Whas steady at 38 C during one hour of the AIDA 64, cpu stress test. That reading are accurate I think as I have compaired readings from the Gigabyte HW monitor with the original HW monitor and the AIDA 64 program readings.

Case temp =  30 C after 1 1/2 hours run time. according to the temp probe on my digital thermometer. The probe are sitting under the roof of the case btw.


----------



## Darren

Yeah that sounds really good, and about typical with a 212. You could easily overclock that chip and have plenty of cushion for temperatures if you wanted to.


----------



## goranpaa

Denther said:


> Yeah that sounds really good, and about typical with a 212. You could easily overclock that chip and have plenty of cushion for temperatures if you wanted to.



Thanks.

Yeah,  I love the CM. Hyper 212 EVO cooler for it's performance and for beeing cheap at the same time. It feels good to know that I have the opportunity to be able to crank up the FX 6300 to at least 4 Ghz when I feel the need?


----------



## Darren

Oh yeah you could clock at 4GHz easy, probably higher. 4.1 is the turbo speed so you should be able to get a few hundred more MHz past that. I've got a 212 also and it's a good cooler. Overclocking my 8320 (same chip basically with 2 more cores to yours) and I could hit like 4.5GHz without a temperature issue. I couldn't maintain it though because my motherboard is mediocre for overclocking.


----------



## goranpaa

Denther said:


> Oh yeah you could clock at 4GHz easy, probably higher. 4.1 is the turbo speed so you should be able to get a few hundred more MHz past that. I've got a 212 also and it's a good cooler. Overclocking my 8320 (same chip basically with 2 more cores to yours) and I could hit like 4.5GHz without a temperature issue. I couldn't maintain it though because my motherboard is mediocre for overclocking.



Sorry for not having ansvered this in  some days.

Thanks for the info! Well, then I can future proof the this cpu for quite a  while it seems. That's good to know.

I'm satified with that I can reach 4.1 GHz. I'm not sure if my Gigabyte mobo is more than a decent over clocker either. So I will have to see how far I can push the clocks beyond 4.1 Ghz when the time comes? If only just out of pure interest.

And anyway, the only times I put some pressure on the processor is when running cpu intensive games.

Yeah, for the price tag, the C.M. 212 is very hard to beat.


----------



## Darren

Your board is alright but not fantastic for overclocking. On my board I simply ran out of voltage bumps for overclocking so I couldn't add more power to the chip to make it more stable. My temperatures were well within control but my board just couldn't push the chip any farther. The 6300 uses less power than my 8320 so you could probably get it farther than I got my 8320, but it varies from chip to chip.


----------



## goranpaa

Denther said:


> Your board is alright but not fantastic for overclocking. On my board I simply ran out of voltage bumps for overclocking so I couldn't add more power to the chip to make it more stable. My temperatures were well within control but my board just couldn't push the chip any farther. The 6300 uses less power than my 8320 so you could probably get it farther than I got my 8320, but it varies from chip to chip.




Hmm, that's pretty much what I exspected from my board. But on the other hand, it behaves and have all the latest bells and whistles + where cheap. So I can't complain really.

It will be really interesting to see how much oomph I can squeeze out of this setup later on?


----------



## Darren

Well features on a board does not mean it can overclock super well. It's a 970 chipset (same as mine) and they typically don't offer nearly as much power available to the CPU for overclocking purposes as a more expensive 990 Chipset. Don't get me wrong, it's probably a fine board and for light/medium overclocking you should be fine, just don't expect something crazy out of a motherboard that probably cost less than a hundred dollars.


----------



## goranpaa

Denther said:


> Well features on a board does not mean it can overclock super well. It's a 970 chipset (same as mine) and they typically don't offer nearly as much power available to the CPU for overclocking purposes as a more expensive 990 Chipset. Don't get me wrong, it's probably a fine board and for light/medium overclocking you should be fine, just don't expect something crazy out of a motherboard that probably cost less than a hundred dollars.



No, agree but those features are nice to have anyway.

Thanks for the info about the 970 chipset. Well, I'm totally satisfied if I can reach as much as 4.3 - 4.5 GHz?

Is there any truth in that every single hundred Ghz oc have more impact on a multi core performance than on a single or dual core cpu?


----------



## Darren

I can't tell you for sure what kind of overclock you can get, you'll have to see for yourself. 

Just bump up the mulitiplier on your chip a 100 MHz at a time and run Prime95 for about 10  minutes and monitor your temps, trying to keep them below 65 degrees or so. If it's stable and doesn't crash and Prime95 doesn't say a worker has stopped working then bump it again. Keep doing this and add voltage if you start to crash during Prime95. Once you've reached a suitable speed with a balance of stability, power, and temperature, let Prime95 run for a few hours and make sure it's rock solid and stable. 

As for it affecting more cores I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Overclocking does the same thing to every core.


----------



## StrangleHold

The 970 chipset has nothing to do with it. Its the power phase setup and mosfets. True most 970 boards don't have a highend power phase, but some do as in the 970A UD3 and 970A UD3P. Good overclocking board for under 100 bucks.


----------



## Darren

StrangleHold said:


> The 970 chipset has nothing to do with it. Its the power phase setup and mosfets. True most 970 boards don't have a highend power phase, but some do as in the 970A UD3 and 970A UD3P. Good overclocking board for under 100 bucks.



I actually didn't know that, I just figured most if not all 970 boards had lower power phases than 990 boards. 

Sorry for misinformation.


----------



## goranpaa

Denther said:


> I can't tell you for sure what kind of overclock you can get, you'll have to see for yourself.
> 
> Just bump up the mulitiplier on your chip a 100 MHz at a time and run Prime95 for about 10  minutes and monitor your temps, trying to keep them below 65 degrees or so. If it's stable and doesn't crash and Prime95 doesn't say a worker has stopped working then bump it again. Keep doing this and add voltage if you start to crash during Prime95. Once you've reached a suitable speed with a balance of stability, power, and temperature, let Prime95 run for a few hours and make sure it's rock solid and stable.
> 
> As for it affecting more cores I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Overclocking does the same thing to every core.



Thank you very much for the info!

Just one question about this then. Should'nt I be able to go straight for 4.1 GHz as this is the turbo clock. And from there do what you say to see how much above that clock I can get? Btw. while running the AIDA 64 stress test for 1 hour, I saw no higher temperatures than 38C at the turbo  clock rate. This clock whas perfectly stable too.

What I meant, whas that if you overclock a multi core cpu compaired to a single or a dual core cpu. Will every, single 100 Mhz step overclock have a more noticeable, performance impact on a multi core compaired to the other 2 types?

I read that there where someone on the net who claimed this without giving any in depth explanation. So I wonder if this really are true?


----------



## Jiniix

Well yeah, 100MHz more on six cores is obviously a higher gain than 100MHz on a dual core, but you still have to deal with software not being core optimized and such.
If you were purely doing number crunching that utilized all cores, you could _almost_ (that math is never correct) say that a 100MHz OC on a six core is a 600MHz OC.


----------



## Darren

That's not how programs will use it though so it's not really the same thing.


----------



## goranpaa

Jiniix said:


> Well yeah, 100MHz more on six cores is obviously a higher gain than 100MHz on a dual core, but you still have to deal with software not being core optimized and such.
> If you were purely doing number crunching that utilized all cores, you could _almost_ (that math is never correct) say that a 100MHz OC on a six core is a 600MHz OC.



Aha! Interesting info. Thanks!


----------



## goranpaa

Denther said:


> That's not how programs will use it though so it's not really the same thing.



So there is no real differece in this between a single / dual and a multi core cpu in real life computing sort of saying?


----------



## Darren

Comparing single core to a six core or whatever the case may be is kind of pointless. You'll get performance increases if you overclock. Period. Yes mathematcally you'll be gaining more the more cores you have but programs don't fully use all cores a 100% efficiency so saying it is way better than overclocking a single core doesn't accomplish anything. 

My friend has an FX 6300 like yours and I have an 8320. They're essentially the same chip (run at the same speed) but mine has 2 more cores than his. Very few games utilize all 8 cores (or 6 for that matter) so the real world differences between the two is low. If they were both clocked higher they would have a pretty similar gain in performance. Now if you're looking at raw benchmarks of how much data can you put through all the of the cores at once then yeah, the 8 core will do more than the 6, but real world won't really show that.


----------



## StrangleHold

With AMD Windows has a slight problem of knowing what threads to run on what cores. All the cores look like individual cores, not modules. If everything goes like it should, the 8 core will run slightly better because it has the capability of spreading the threads out on the cores. In other words if your running a 4 threaded program it can run 1 thread on each module instead of doubling them up on modules. But windows will screw it up and run 4 threads on 2 modules and leave 2 modules idle. 

I can run a 4 threaded program and every time Windows will use different cores. Sometimes it will double them up on modules. Then run all threads on different modules. Then double 2 up on a module and run the other 2 on different modules. You can run the same benchmark 4 times and get a slightly different score each time. I even have the patch installed and it still didn't completely fix it.


----------



## Darren

To be clear an 8320 has 4 modules, each with 2 cores on it right? Does it work in any similar way to Hyper Threading that Intel has?


----------



## goranpaa

Denther said:


> Comparing single core to a six core or whatever the case may be is kind of pointless. You'll get performance increases if you overclock. Period. Yes mathematcally you'll be gaining more the more cores you have but programs don't fully use all cores a 100% efficiency so saying it is way better than overclocking a single core doesn't accomplish anything.
> 
> My friend has an FX 6300 like yours and I have an 8320. They're essentially the same chip (run at the same speed) but mine has 2 more cores than his. Very few games utilize all 8 cores (or 6 for that matter) so the real world differences between the two is low. If they were both clocked higher they would have a pretty similar gain in performance. Now if you're looking at raw benchmarks of how much data can you put through all the of the cores at once then yeah, the 8 core will do more than the 6, but real world won't really show that.



Ok. thank you very much for sorting this out for me.

I tried an overclock yesterday. I could reach 4.5 Ghz stable. With a max temp of 44 C doing the AIDA 64 stress test for 2 hours. The room temperature at the time where 20 C.

That is pretty neat I think. 

But I'm satisfied with the FX 6300 at stock speed for the moment at least.


----------



## goranpaa

StrangleHold said:


> With AMD Windows has a slight problem of knowing what threads to run on what cores. All the cores look like individual cores, not modules. If everything goes like it should, the 8 core will run slightly better because it has the capability of spreading the threads out on the cores. In other words if your running a 4 threaded program it can run 1 thread on each module instead of doubling them up on modules. But windows will screw it up and run 4 threads on 2 modules and leave 2 modules idle.
> 
> I can run a 4 threaded program and every time Windows will use different cores. Sometimes it will double them up on modules. Then run all threads on different modules. Then double 2 up on a module and run the other 2 on different modules. You can run the same benchmark 4 times and get a slightly different score each time. I even have the patch installed and it still didn't completely fix it.



Hi!

Did'nt know this about AMD cpu's and the treading problem in Windows.  Thanks for the info. Time to get that patch then.


----------



## StrangleHold

Denther said:


> To be clear an 8320 has 4 modules, each with 2 cores on it right? Does it work in any similar way to Hyper Threading that Intel has?




 Right, they share some of the upper end and the L2 cache on each module. No, not really. Bulldozer is all hardware. In a virtual world the module is a great idea. But in the real word, its just to complicated for the OS to figure out what threads to run where, lol


----------

