Fx 4300 really is slow

A

applegrcoug

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 28, 2021
Messages
459
Nothing earth shattering here...just stupid venting...

I have a couple fx systems lying around for some dumb reason...probably because they were free.

I have a fx 8320 and then an fx 4300. It truly is amazing how big of a turd the fx 4300 is. Even with an SSD it is laggy with just every day tasks...like turning on. For booting and loading chrome the 8320 isnt noticeably crappier than my 5950x.

I'd replace the fx4300 but $35 on Ebay is probably overpriced for a fx 8320.
 
applegrcoug said:
Nothing earth shattering here...just stupid venting...

I have a couple fx systems lying around for some dumb reason...probably because they were free.

I have a fx 8320 and then an fx 4300. It truly is amazing how big of a turd the fx 4300 is. Even with an SSD it is laggy with just every day tasks...like turning on. For booting and loading chrome the 8320 isnt noticeably crappier than my 5950x.

I'd replace the fx4300 but $35 on Ebay is probably overpriced for a fx 8320.
Click to expand...

This is about what I'd expect out of base tech that is at least a decade old (bulldozer).
 
How much RAM does the system have? If it's still stuck with 4GB or less, that's probably why.

I have refurbished and upgraded many older systems, some more than 15 years old. Systems with CPUs such as an Intel Core2Quad or an AMD Phenom X4. I've upgraded most of those systems all the way to Windows 11. They still seem just fine for most office-type tasks. Having at least 6-8GB of RAM is highly preferable. With 4GB or below you can run into slowdowns, especially with RAM-heavy apps such as Chrome. As far as booting, you might be able to change some BIOS options to decrease boot time, but really, how often do you do a cold boot or a restart? If you just use sleep most of the time, it should be a non-issue.
 
GotNoRice said:
How much RAM does the system have? If it's still stuck with 4GB or less, that's probably why.

I have refurbished and upgraded many older systems, some more than 15 years old. Systems with CPUs such as an Intel Core2Quad or an AMD Phenom X4. I've upgraded most of those systems all the way to Windows 11. They still seem just fine for most office-type tasks. Having at least 6-8GB of RAM is highly preferable. With 4GB or below you can run into slowdowns, especially with RAM-heavy apps such as Chrome. As far as booting, you might be able to change some BIOS options to decrease boot time, but really, how often do you do a cold boot or a restart? If you just use sleep most of the time, it should be a non-issue.
Click to expand...
It has 8gb of ram and i could put in 16gb. I'm not trying to do anything but comment on how big of a turd that one was.

uq9pri7huoi11[1].jpg
 
pendragon1 said:
they werent that bad 10 years ago... as for the slow load, something else is slowing it down. mine didnt act like that.
Click to expand...
I agree with this as well. With 8GB of ram and an SSD, an FX 4300 should have no trouble at all loading Windows and apps like chrome. There shouldn't be any perceivable difference. Not even going as far back as the Core2Quads. They still ought to make for decent office workstations.
 
applegrcoug said:
Nothing earth shattering here...just stupid venting...

I have a couple fx systems lying around for some dumb reason...probably because they were free.

I have a fx 8320 and then an fx 4300. It truly is amazing how big of a turd the fx 4300 is. Even with an SSD it is laggy with just every day tasks...like turning on. For booting and loading chrome the 8320 isnt noticeably crappier than my 5950x.

I'd replace the fx4300 but $35 on Ebay is probably overpriced for a fx 8320.
Click to expand...
this is exactly how i feel about the I3-6300 or i5-7300u we have at work -- and they are A LOT faster then a fx4300 in ipc at least. I wouldnt mind having an old FX system around as my retro gaming PC, but they sell for too much on the 2nd hand market for my taste. Just bought an AMD r5 5500 for my daughter, $98
 
applegrcoug said:
Nothing earth shattering here...just stupid venting...

I have a couple fx systems lying around for some dumb reason...probably because they were free.

I have a fx 8320 and then an fx 4300. It truly is amazing how big of a turd the fx 4300 is. Even with an SSD it is laggy with just every day tasks...like turning on. For booting and loading chrome the 8320 isnt noticeably crappier than my 5950x.

I'd replace the fx4300 but $35 on Ebay is probably overpriced for a fx 8320.
Click to expand...
Id almost bet on a bad ssd or trim isnt enabled?
 
pendragon1 said:
they werent that bad 10 years ago... as for the slow load, something else is slowing it down. mine didnt act like that.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I used an FX-4100 in a server with ECC RAM, and a FX-6100 in a desktop circa 2011-2014, and both performed more than reasonably well for nearly everything I threw at them with contemporary software and games.
Using one today for games in the last few years would be painful, but nearly everything else for casual usage should be more than serviceable.

That whole architecture was loaded with issues, but considering those CPUs are all now well over a decade old and are rounding the bend on becoming retro, none of this is surprising.
 
pendragon1 said:
they werent that bad 10 years ago... as for the slow load, something else is slowing it down. mine didnt act like that.
Click to expand...
Eh they kinda were that bad. Westmere chips or almost any higher end CPU after core2 was often a better option.

Only saving grace for that socket now is they wernt significantly effected by vulnerability patches and 8 slow threads are finally utilized by most games and programs.

They are still overpriced on ebay, I think the 8core 5ghz marketing is still keeping them selling to less informed parties. Especially compared to the $10 LGA 2011 xeons that can walk around them.
 
Run a geekbench benchmark and check if your system has regressed in performance. FX-4300 should get around 570/1600. Make sure you still get that. I see that people that can keep it boosting to its standard 4GHz get 600+/1800. Try to achieve that.

I ran geekbench on my Atom z8350 which is hilarious to some, but I managed to get 5-10% more performance out of it after changing some bios settings I couldn't figure out if they did anything. Sometimes disabling something results in more performance.

Also, you might find that running an older feature version of win10 runs smoother than the current ones. I'm on Win10 LTSC 2019 and I set windows update group policy to "Target Version = 1809" which keeps me on that feature update. Nice and lean. Disable all the bloat with "windows powertool". You'll still get tons of security updates. Just not the extra crap.

Get an SSD with good QD1 random read/write performance. I couldn't care less about 3000 or 6000 MB/s when some of the PCIEx4 nvme drives struggle to get over 50MB/s in random read QD1. I'd rather use a SATA3 drive with better random reads than a modern cheap nvme with crap random performance. (I'm not saying nvme is slower, I'm saying a high quality sata drive can win over some nvme drives in benchmarks that really matter for normal workstation usage). In my Ryzen 5500 build I'm using a WD SN810 256GB drive that I got for 20USD. I run it at PCIe3x and can still enjoy that nice QD1 performance.
 
Last edited:
buttons said:
Id almost bet on a bad ssd or trim isnt enabled?
Click to expand...
Ya I would agree. I have a couple old Phenom systems kicking around P1x3 6GB and a P2x4 8GB both with SSD's and they work totally fine with web etc... even a reboot is acceptable to me. Maybe it is the nature of the 4300 being essentially 2x2 with low IPC?
Curious.
 
It probably doesn't help. If it's a storage issue then you should be able to tell simply by opening task manager upon a reboot. Hell. You might be able to do that selective startup that used to be all the rage before multi core and SSDS were so affordable.
 
penn919 said:
I agree with this as well. With 8GB of ram and an SSD, an FX 4300 should have no trouble at all loading Windows and apps like chrome. There shouldn't be any perceivable difference. Not even going as far back as the Core2Quads. They still ought to make for decent office workstations.
Click to expand...
As long as the cooling is aftermarket, or you work inside a jet turbine 😀
 
travm said:
I never owned any of the 4 cores, but my 6 core machine ran hot. The stock coolers were also trash.
Click to expand...
The four core one is ok I guess for heat. I don't think i could even get an eight core model to boot with the lousy stock cooler.

I guess my whole thought/point was that the four nerfed core really wasn't very good especially compared to the eight nerfed core model. Those extra nerfed cores really seem to help take a lot of load off for the back ground things.
 
I have a couple FX4100/4300s 8GB laying around still. Just fine for desktop/multimedia/kodi/browsing - ON LINUX.
 
If I didn't want to rebuilt the whole PC, I think I'd just pay the $35 to not have to deal with an FX-4300, lol
 
I still have my FX-4100, running at 4.4 GHz.

It's doing just fine, paired with a GeForce GTX 660, and 16 GB of memory, and can still run most games with reasonably eye candy.

8 GB isn't going to be sufficient these days, if you're trying to do anything other than minimal web surfing, or one Office app at a time. DDR3 memory is pretty darn cheap these days, and you could easily upgrade to 16 GB for a handful of bucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top