D-1513N vs FX-6300
Primary details
Comparing FX-6300 and D-1513N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1716 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 66 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.52 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon D |
| Power efficiency | 2.59 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $132 | $192 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-6300 and D-1513N basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 6 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Multiplier | no data | 16 |
| L1 cache | 288 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 6144 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 8192 KB | 6 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 246.24 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 3200 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.15 V - Max: 1.3875 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-6300 and D-1513N compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6300 and D-1513N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
FX-6300 and D-1513N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6300 and D-1513N are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6300 and D-1513N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1866 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 29.861 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6300 and D-1513N.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 6 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
FX-6300 has 50% more physical cores.
D-1513N, on the other hand, has 33.3% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between FX-6300 and D-1513N. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that FX-6300 is a desktop processor while D-1513N is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6300 and D-1513N, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
