Report: AMD introduces budget-friendly FX-6330 Black Edition CPU

According to Chinese website PCPop, AMD has quietly launched a new CPU, the FX-6330 Black Edition. This purported new chip is based off the Piledriver architecture, and it's built on a 32-nm process. This 95W chip packs six Vishera cores clocked at 3.6 GHz base and 4.2 GHz turbo speeds, assisted by 6MB of L2 cache and 8MB of L3 cache.

The website claims the chip is already selling in the Chinese market for around $109, a price that places it roughly in Intel Pentium or entry-level Core i3 territory. Given the "6330" model number, it stands to reason that the new CPU is a update to the existing FX-6300.

The FX-6330's unlocked multiplier could be of interest for those who want to overclock on the cheap. PCPop reportedly obtained a retail FX-6330 and benchmarked it against Intel's Core i3-4160. The AMD chip seems to hold its own reasonably well in those benchmarks, so it could be a viable option for builders on a budget who are willing to tolerate the aging AM3+ platform.

Comments closed
    • sophisticles
    • 4 years ago

    Another desperate attempt from a desperate company. This is almost an insult to AMD’s customers; a while back there were rumors that AMD would release a 5M/10C cpu, now that would be something or if they managed to release a 3M/6C APU based on Excavator or Steamroller cores, that I could get behind.

    But this?

    Rubbish!!!

      • dnorf87
      • 4 years ago

      How is it an insult? They haven’t had an actual NEW product for AM3+ since 2013, and they have to try to stay in the news somehow. It’s nothing more than a slight clockspeed bump from an FX-6300. Do they really need it? Not really. At least they’re getting attention on the affordable 6 “core” chip again.

      A 5M/10C CPU would be interesting, but it still wouldn’t hold up too well in the benchmarks that most people are looking at, and think about what kind of competition they’d have price-wise? The FX 8 series chips are doing pretty well performance/dollar. Add another module, the fact that the price would have to be a good bit more–possibly more than an unlocked i5 that would still outperform it in many games. Would it work? Sure. Especially for a budget video encoding machine against an Intel rig at the same price. Then there’s power consumption to worry about. The most common AM3+ motherboards likely wouldn’t like the power draw from a 5M/10C chip. My 970A-UD3 struggled to run a stock 8320. VRM temps got ridiculous. It just doesn’t sound like a good option, overall.

      Also, don’t forget about how AMD has already dropped off the radar enough for people to not even edit the AMD wikipedia pages when new CPU’s come around. It takes some time for people to even notice that something is out there. Whatever happens, it’s time for them to squeeze a little more life out of the nearly 3 year old chips and focus on Zen.

      • f0d
      • 4 years ago

      the 4m/8c FX is already a big chip (around the size of ivy bridge-e) a 5m/10c cpu would be huge and wouldnt have much in the way of benefits as the problem with amd cpus is the low ipc not the amount of cores it has
      edit: its actually bigger than ivy bridge-e 6c
      Ivy Bridge E 6C 257mm2
      FX 8 core 315mm2

      plus the money invested into a new mask (in the millions afaik) for this would be expensive and amd doesnt need to spend a bunch of money on something that will probably still be cheap and not much faster than what they have

      what we need is zen to hurry up

        • Geonerd
        • 4 years ago

        Not sure if the memory controller could keep up with more threads and traffic, but I always pined for a FX re-spin that downsized the the (overkill) L2+L3 and spend the bonus transistors on a few more modules.

    • just brew it!
    • 4 years ago

    At least it’s something people can actually use, and not another 200+ watt “stunt” CPU.

    Sadly, the budget AM3+ motherboards currently in the channel really suck, limiting the appeal of a chip like this. You need to go with a more expensive full ATX mobo if you want a chipset that was designed in the current decade, which kind of defeats the purpose of going with a budget CPU in the first place.

      • dnorf87
      • 4 years ago

      You can’t say this enough. Want to have some fun? Look up some of the fire-prone motherboards sold over the last 10 years. Pretty much all of them are AM3/AM3+.

      On an AMD-based 8 core system, you’d pretty much have to pick up a $200 board to get the level of stability you can find on really any other platform at any price.

      The new socket/Zen better have a different way of delivering power to the CPU/APU.

        • just brew it!
        • 4 years ago

        [quote<]On an AMD-based 8 core system, you'd pretty much have to pick up a $200 board to get the level of stability you can find on really any other platform at any price.[/quote<] I'm actually going to have to disagree with you on this point. I've built systems with (and recommended to others) boards from the Asus M5A97 series multiple times since Bulldozer debuted, and they're solid, stable boards that don't cost a lot (typically in the $80-$120 range depending on variant). My primary home desktop is still an FX-8320 on an M5A97 R2.0 built back in late 2012, and it has been rock solid. The micro-ATX AM3+ offerings seem to be universally terrible though.

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 4 years ago

    “We all of these old inventory of chips… What should we do with them?”

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      If it was summertime, an MLB gate prize would work: [url<]http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-is-giving-away-free-a8-3870k-apus-at-this-weekends-giants-baseball-game_14076[/url<] Hockey & Basketball are going on now, so maybe a change of sports will do the trick.

        • DrDominodog51
        • 4 years ago

        That was one of the few games I didn’t go to in 2012. 😐

    • tipoo
    • 4 years ago

    They hold out in framerates in benchmarks, but similarly to their GPU issues, even with an Nvidia GPU, the FX series tends to post higher frame times on the high percentiles than the i3. In this case, due to the lower single thread performance rather than drivers. I was speccing out budget systems a while ago and found it hard to justify an FX 6 core when it was usually a few dozen dollars within the Intel system.
    The two extra virtual threads in the i3 put it well above the Pentium for frame times as well by the way. Pentium < FX < i3 currently for frametimes. The i3 sometimes even beats the FX 8 series there!

    That said, I also seem to recall DX12 flipping the situation? I’d love for TR to check that out when there’s an adequate supply of DX12 games. Makes it harder as you’re then thinking about better DX11 performance now vs DX12 performance maybe-later.

    Check some of the tables here, The FX’s core count advantage allows it to start pushing harder than the i3 independant of GPU maker, though AMDs GPUs seem to be able to go higher for draw calls too.
    [url<]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger[/url<]

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 4 years ago

      I don’t see any evidence that the FX is slower than the i3 there. It looks about equivalent unless DX12/mantle are used, then much faster.

      Also keep in mind, DX12 is not a replacement for DX11. They’re complimentary and both will continue to be used.

        • xeridea
        • 4 years ago

        Yes, but if a game supports DX12 (assuming you have Win10) or Vulkan, it will be pointless to use DX11. The big studios will likely all switch to DX12 soonish, for new games anyway. For smaller games it isn’t much of an issue.

          • Theolendras
          • 4 years ago

          Not all game will move to Direct X 12, there is overhead involved for developper, that’s probably why Microsoft also continue to improve Direct X11 as well. So it probably won’t be a clear cut transition no turning back for a while.

          • tipoo
          • 4 years ago

          It’s not quite like past DX revision changes, this is going to a lower level API. Like LibGCM vs PSGL, developers will choose based on talent and resources, with less support structures in place in the lower overhead API there’s room for performance gain, but also more rope to hang yourself with.

        • tipoo
        • 4 years ago

        No, that link was my proof it won under 12 😛
        There’s no frametimes listed there, I seem to remember that from some TR tests, have to go digging. Not sure what happens to FX frametimes under DX12.

    • f0d
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]The website claims the chip is already selling in the Chinese market for around $109, a price that places it roughly in Intel Pentium or entry-level Core i3 territory. Given the "6330" model number, it stands to reason that the new CPU is a update to the existing FX-6300.[/quote<] for gaming vs intel pentium = win vs intel i3 = lose theres a big difference between a pentium and an i3 if you are encoding videos or something thats multithreaded then its a completely different story and the FX are quite a bargain

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 4 years ago

      Did you actually read the site? For at least two games (one appears to be Metro 2033, not sure what the other one is), the FX is faster.

        • f0d
        • 4 years ago

        not exactly a wide range of games or a site i particularly trust

        edit: some comparisons from a site thats a bit more reputable
        [url<]http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/page5.html[/url<]

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 4 years ago

          The 4360 is $40 more expensive than the FX. When Bruno said “entry level” he really meant it.

            • f0d
            • 4 years ago

            what about the 6100?
            [url<]http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/page4.html[/url<] i dont know american prices - is that priced closer to the purported price of this new cpu?

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 4 years ago

            It’s closer ($20 difference), though Intel motherboards usually cost more too.

            Interesting that the 6100 looks so great compared the 4360, really no reason to get the old one.

      • Rza79
      • 4 years ago

      Pentium processors will soon be no option for games because some games are going to require 4 threads.

        • auxy
        • 4 years ago

        Some games already require 4 threads, but if you patch them to not have this stupid check, they run just fine, as expected. It’s idiocy from companies who don’t understand computer hardware. ;つー`)

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 4 years ago

          Or they understand just fine, but have other reasons for arbitrary and capricious checks.

    • ronch
    • 4 years ago

    Oh wow.

    See, AMD continues to innovate! /s

      • DPete27
      • 4 years ago

      Do you think I should upgrade from my FX 6300? I mean….100MHz higher clocks and all…

        • ronch
        • 4 years ago

        Look at it this way: A Pentium/100 back in the day was one of the awesomest CPUs you could get your hands on (or can’t, depending on your level of affluence). So yes, 100MHz is awesome!

        • ultima_trev
        • 4 years ago

        No, jump to the FX 6350 if you don’t OC. But you would better off trying to OC probably.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This