Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

My experience with this CPU has been a noticeable speed boost from my X4 975, and gives superior performance than my Intel i7-960, at *stock* speeds. I haven't OC'ed it except to see whether it was made with OCing in mind. At 4.1 GHz this chip stays cool enough you can get by without having to buy anything gigantic or expensive. Watching a full HD movie on VLC with 10+ tabs open in firefox, chatting on skype+IRC *and* a temp monitor running... this thing hasn't gone above 56% with most cores underclocked via the auto-power-saving features. The important info follows: *it assumes the buyer is basing their choice on what has the muscle to run their taxing apps, and that the other options being considered are other choices in the same line (though most of this applies when deciding between an i5 and this cpu)* 1. Good single core performance. Articles bothering to measure this are rare, but the FX-6300 actually *outperforms* the more expensive 8-core models in running tasks dependent on individual core performance rather than the number of cores. I'll cut to the practical info to take from that: multimedia-oriented programs will benefit from more cores (so graphic artists would want more cores) and to a lesser extent, gaming will benefit from greater single-core performance. *Nobody* mentions this fact, and honestly I'm writing this review primarily to get that information out there, since the default logic would be that if anything the 6 core is definitely inferior to the 4 cores, or that the 8 cores would be faster in every way bar none. Also, if you're just browsing, checking email and watching youtube and skyping etc... don't worry! 6-cores and the stock 3.5Ghz speed is already way overkill :) 2: When you are weighing how much money to invest in your CPU, the only price/performance comparisons are vs intel's products. This is superior to the 4-core Vishera's hands down. For another $20 or even $10 you get 50% more cores and cache that'll handle your games just as well. Spending another 40-50 dollars for a 8350 or 8320 is either a no brainer upgrade or a complete waste of money depending on your needs. New sockets or redesigned architecture will make the FX line in general obsolete before you start being thankful you splurged for that extra power back when the difference wasn't noticeable. Eg: Not the right component to upgrade for "future proofing". Put simply; Even everyday users will benefit from an upgrade from the 4-core to 6-core at very little expense for the higher performance, and 6 cores @ the easily OCed 3.5GHz is still ample for intensive desktop use. Even some intensive-program users won't see an improvement worth even $30 more for the upgrade to 8 cores. Basically, 6 cores is in the "able to handle whatever you're going to throw at it" category, whereas 8 cores is in the "Unless you run a FPS in windowed mode while transcoding a video, you'll probably never utilize the extra performance you dropped cash on, and it'll likely be a matter of speediness rather than true increased capability when it is utilized" 3: Everything out there is requiring less and less power. Not even enthusiasts need 1000 watt PSU's anymore The difference between 125 vs 95 watts TDP may mean a better GPU, more OCing room or just less PSU wear out. Use an online power estimater and you might find the extra 30 watts means letting you use a better GPU or spending less on a PSU! Don't overlook the potential advantages your complete build might have by needing less power than the rest of the piledrivers.