AMD FX-4350 vs AMD FX-8350: What is the difference?
39points
AMD FX-4350
35points
AMD FX-8350
Comparison winner
vs
64 facts in comparison
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
Why is AMD FX-4350 better than AMD FX-8350?
- 1MB/core more L3 cache per core?
2MB/corevs1MB/core - 1 higher Turbo Core version?
3vs2
Why is AMD FX-8350 better than AMD FX-4350?
- 1.9x faster CPU speed?
8 x 4GHzvs4 x 4.2GHz - 4 more CPU threads?
8vs4 - 4MB bigger L2 cache?
8MBvs4MB - 192KB bigger L1 cache?
384KBvs192KB
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 3250U
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
AMD FX-4350
vs
Intel Core i5-3570
AMD FX-8350
vs
Intel Core i7-4770K
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD FX-4300
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD FX-6300
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD A8-5600K
AMD FX-8350
vs
Intel Core i7-3770
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5500U
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD FX-8370
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD Athlon Silver 3050U
AMD FX-8350
vs
Intel Core i7-4770
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD FX-6300
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
Price comparison
User reviews
Overall Rating
AMD FX-4350
0 User reviews
AMD FX-4350
0. 0/10
0 User reviews
AMD FX-8350
5 User reviews
AMD FX-8350
9.8/10
5 User reviews
Features
Value for money
No reviews yet
9.6/10
5 votes
Gaming
No reviews yet
9.6/10
5 votes
Performance
No reviews yet
9.2/10
5 votes
Reliability
No reviews yet
9.6/10
5 votes
Energy efficiency
No reviews yet
8.6/10
5 votes
Performance
1.CPU speed
4 x 4.2GHz
8 x 4GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
2.CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
3.turbo clock speed
4.3GHz
4.2GHz
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
4.Has an unlocked multiplier
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
5.L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
6.L3 cache
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
7.L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
8.L2 core
1MB/core
1MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
9.L3 core
2MB/core
1MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Memory
1.RAM speed
1866MHz
1866MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
21GB/s
21GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.DDR memory version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
4.memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
5.maximum memory amount
Unknown.
Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
6.bus transfer rate
5.4GT/s
5.4GT/s
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports ECC memory
✖AMD FX-4350
✖AMD FX-8350
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
9.bus speed
Unknown.
Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Benchmarks
1.PassMark result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
2.PassMark result (single)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
(AMD FX-4350)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 (single) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender (bmw27) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
8.
Blender (classroom) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
9.performance per watt
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multithreading
✖AMD FX-4350
✖AMD FX-8350
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
2.Has AES
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3.Has AVX
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
4.SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
6.bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
7.Has MMX
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD FX-4350
✖AMD FX-8350
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
9.front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8350)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best CPUs?
AMD FX-4350 vs AMD FX-8350. Which is the Best?
X
This site is a free online resource that strives to offer helpful content and comparison features to its visitors. Please be advised that the operator of this site accepts advertising compensation from certain companies that appear on the site, and such compensation impacts the location and order in which the companies (and/or their products) are presented, and in some cases may also impact the scoring that is assigned to them.
The scoring that appears on this site is determined by the site operator in its sole discretion, and should NOT be relied upon for accuracy purposes. In fact, Company/product listings on this page DO NOT imply endorsement by the site operator. Except as expressly set forth in our Terms of Use, all representations and warranties regarding the information presented on this page are disclaimed. The information which appears on this site is subject to change at any time.
More info
General Specifications
Brand
AMD
AMD
Model
FX-4350
FX-8350
Origin
Malaysia
Malaysia
About the Product
AMD FX-4350 is a quad-core processor based on the Vishera microarchitecture manufactured using a 32nm process technology. The processor frequency is 4.2 GHz. Includes support for Turbo mode up to 4.3GHz. The processor has 4 MB of L2 cache and 8 MB of L3 cache. The heat dissipation of the processor is 125 W.
AMD FX-8350 is an eight-core processor based on the Vishera microarchitecture, manufactured using a 32 nm process technology. The processor frequency is 4 GHz. Includes support for Turbo mode up to 4.2 GHz. The processor has 8 MB of L2 cache and 8 MB of L3 cache. The heat dissipation of the processor is 125 W.
Package Size
Height
4.5 in.
5.5 in.
Width
3.4 in.
5 in.
Depth
2.4 in.
2.8 in.
Weight
1.1 lbs.
1.3 lbs.
-
Height
-
Width
-
Depth
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
Details
Socket
AM3+
AM3+
Lithography
32 nm
32 nm
Type of Processors
Desktop
Desktop
Code Name
Vishera
Vishera
What customers say about «Details»
AMD FX-4350 CPU Processor
- Asus M5A78L-M motherboard allowed to raise the FX 4350 frequency to 4.
6 Ghz by 10%, without finer overclocking settings. - With a good cooler, it does not heat up more than 37.
- With 1060 graphics card and SSD, all games work perfectly.
- It gets very hot, as a result of which the fans always run at full speed and there is noise.
AMD FX-8350 CPU Processor
- As good as it gets for this socket type without water cooling.
- This is the best processor for the socket.
- I find the AMD socket a great deal more stable and less prone to defect.
- Easy install in existing socket, adequate cooling.
- It was easy to install. Great processor. Amazing performance.
Technical Specifications
CPU Cores
CPU Threads
Clock Speed
4.2 GHz
4 GHz
Turbo Clock Speed
4.3 GHz
4.2 GHz
Max TDP
125 W
125 W
Max Temperature
61.1 °C
61 °C
Data Width
64 bits
64 bits
Virtualization Technology
Yes
Yes
-
CPU Cores
-
CPU Threads
-
Max TDP
-
Max Temperature
-
Data Width
-
Virtualization Technology
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
What customers say about «Technical Specifications»
AMD FX-4350 CPU Processor
- This processor is designed for those who will overclock it.
- Kernels not tied to the memory controller. As a result, they must be overclocked separately.
- Temperature. 125 watts Old man! Bad performance.
- Heats up. And the socket is already out of date.
AMD FX-8350 CPU Processor
- The 8 cores make gaming and multitasking smooth and fluid.
- Regular workstation performance is lighting fast, even with image editing and tolerable for video editing.
- It runs so fast and well, and really makes my HD 7970 shine.
- This processor is stable, reliable and quite fast.
- Runs very hot when running to capacity.
Cache And Memory Specifications
L1 Cache Size
192 kB
384 kB
L2 Cache Size
4000 kB
8000 kB
L3 Cache Size
8000 kB
8000 kB
Max Memory Size
32 GB
32 GB
Memory Types
DDR3
DDR3
Max Memory Channels
Max Memory Bandwidth
29.
9 GB/s
29.9 GB/s
-
L1 Cache Size
-
Max Memory Channels
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-8350
What customers say about «Cache And Memory Specifications»
AMD FX-4350 CPU Processor
- The low frequency of the memory controller / CPU-NB / Northbridge in the drain (solved by overclocking) is relevant in modern realities.
- 16GB RAM crucial 2×8 with FX 4350 for gaming just perfect.
- I like this processor: high base frequency, large L3 cache, fast memory.
- 4 cores with shared L3 cache. This is not enough.
- Level 3 cache 8 MB which is not enough for current days.
AMD FX-8350 CPU Processor
- Performance for the price, reliability, speed, good sized cache. Great processor.
- The cores and cache are strong enough to handle single-threaded applications impressively.
- This CPU is definitely powerful. The CPU has a large cache which helps in performance.
- Plenty of L2 and L3 Cache. Highly recommend.
- Huge cache capacity really allow it to perform under large amounts of pressure.
Supported Technologies
Execute Disable Bit / Virus Protection
Yes
Yes
Turbo Boost / Turbo Core
Yes
Yes
Enhanced SpeedStep / PowerNow!
Yes
Yes
Hyper-Threading / HyperTransport
Yes
Yes
-
Execute Disable Bit / Virus Protection
-
Enhanced SpeedStep / PowerNow!
-
Hyper-Threading / HyperTransport
What customers say about «Supported Technologies»
Warranty / Certifications
Manufacturer Warranty
3 year(s)
3 year(s)
Certifications
CE, FCC
CE, FCC
Other Information
Manufacturer
Link
Link
Manual
download
Price History
✔ AMD FX-4350 CPU Processor
✔ AMD FX-8350 CPU Processor
Popular Comparisons
Other reviews
Best Gaming CPUs
Best CPUs
Best Computer Cases
Best 140mm Case Fans
Best Raspberry Pi Starter Kits
Best USB Sound Cards
Best NVMe SSD
Best Sound Cards
Best Solid State Drives
Best Computer Power Supplies
Best Motherboards
Best Thermal Paste
AMD Piledriver FX-4350, FX-6350 & FX-8350 Review
Brand: AMD
Model: Piledriver FX-4350, FX-6350 & FX-8350
Website: http://www.
amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx.aspx
RRP FX-4350: £95 (At time of the review)
RRP FX-6350: £105 (At time of the review)
RRP FX-8350: £155 (At time of the review)
I am going to be taking a look at AMDs latest “Piledriver” line-up to see how they fare in todays review. I will be taking a look at the top of the line components from the four, six and eight core lines. Whilst this review will definitely demonstrate how much extra performance the extra cores offer over their smaller siblings when a heavily multithreaded application is being used, it will also demonstrate how well the additional cores scale. For example, going from a four core to an eight core CPU will not deliver a 100% improvement in performance. AMD had the best scaling in the Phenom II days. Since then, they haven’t been able to get the cores to scale quite as well although the reason for that is unclear to me.
AMD have been playing catch-up with Intel for a long time now.
Are they finally beginning to close the gap in terms of IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) and performance in general? In order to find out, I will be using a mid-ranged Intel Core i5-3570K to see how well the AMD CPUs stack up against Intel’s “mid-range” processor. The reason for this is simple and that is the i5-3570Ks price point. Whilst it is more expensive when compared to the AMD offerings, it is a quad core with four threads which should in theory make the FX-8350 shine in heavily multithreaded applications. However, will that be the case? Or will Intel still lead the way even though it has half the number of cores?
AMD have a pretty longwinded features and specifications list so without further ado, let’s examine the specs and then get started with the review.
AMD FX Processors
We call it the new AMD FX 8-Core Processor Black Edition and it’s unlocked for your overclocking pleasure.1 Experience unmatched multitasking and pure core performance with the industry’s first 32nm 8-core desktop processor.
Get the speed you crave with AMD Turbo CORE Technology to push your core frequencies to the limit when you need it most. Go beyond the limits of maximum speed with easy-to-use AMD OverDrive™ and AMD Catalyst Control Center™ software suites. But the best part of all? You’ll get all this impressive performance at an unbelievable price. You’ll be asking yourself “what competition?” in no time.
AMD FX 8-Core Processors
- The industry’s first and only native 8-core desktop processor for unmatched multitasking and pure core performance with all-new “Bulldozer” architecture.
- New 32 nanometer die shrink designed to reduce leakage for improved efficiency, increased clock rate headroom and better thermals.
AMD Turbo CORE Technology
- The AMD FX Processors come equipped with AMD Turbo CORE Technology. AMD Turbo CORE Technology is a performance boosting technology that helps increase performance on the applications that need it the most.
New Instruction Capabilities
- AVX
- Advanced Vector Extensions increase parallelism tailored for scientific and 3D applications that use heavy floating point calculations
- FMA4 and XOP
- Floating Point Vector Multiply -Accumulate improves throughput and performance on many vector functions (integer and floating point)
- AES
- Advanced Encryption Standard noticeably increase performance on the latest encryption applications like TrueCrypt and benchmarks like PCMark
AMD Balanced Smart Cache
- Shared L3 cache ( up to 8MB)
- Improved scheduling and pre-fetch capabilities
- 64-ways (16-ways/sub-cache)
- Increased data queue sizes
- Coherency for 8-cores
AMD Wide Floating Point Accelerator
- Shared FP Scheduler
- Dual 128-bit Floating point engines – capable of teaming together for 256-bit AVX instructions or operating separately with each core.
HyperTransport™ Technology
- One 16-bit link at up to 5600MT/s
- Up to 8.0GB/s HyperTransport™ I/O bandwidth; Up to 16GB/s in HyperTransport Generation 3.0 mode
- Up to 37GB/s total delivered processor-to-system bandwidth (HyperTransport bus + memory bus)
Benefit: Quick access times to system I/O for better performance.
Integrated DRAM Controller with AMD Memory Optimizer Technology
- A high-bandwidth, low-latency integrated memory controller
- Supports up to DDR3-18662
- Supports new low voltage memories of 1.35V and 1.2V
- Up to 29.9GB/s memory bandwidth for DDR3
- New Pre-Fetcher improvements
- Direct communications to each core in Dual-Core module (APIC registers in each core)
Benefit: Optimized memory controller to feed more cores
AMD Virtualization™ (AMD-V™) Technology with IOMMU
- Silicon feature-set enhancements designed to improve the performance, reliability, and security of existing and future virtualization environments by allowing virtualized applications with direct and rapid access to their allocated memory.
- IOMMU is an extension to AMD64 architecture to support address translation and access protection on DMA transfers
- Security for User Level application and Virtual Machine guest operating system
- Address translation and access control
- Device isolation
- Device assignment in virtualized systems
- Security & trusted boot support
- Unified interrupt management
- Security for User Level application and Virtual Machine guest operating system
Benefit: Helps virtualization software to run more securely and efficiently enabling a better experience when dealing with virtual systems
AMD PowerNow!™ Technology (Cool’n’Quiet™ Technology)
- Enhanced power management features which automatically and instantaneously adjusts performance states and features based on processor performance requirements
- C6 power state for cache flush, and voltage down individual core
- CC6 power state allows all cores in C6 to power even lower
- For quieter operation and reduced power requirements
- Separate memory controller power control
- IO-based c-state interface
- Works automatically without the need for drivers or BIOS enablement.
- Power can be switched on or off within a single clock cycle, saving energy with no impact to performance.
Benefit: Helps users get more efficient performance by dynamically activating or turning off parts of the processor.
Enthusiasts around the globe are ever hopeful that AMD will switch to LGA for their socket system soon but it is unlikely to happen in the near future. Remember the days when you’d pull out your CPU with the cooler unless you swivelled it back and forth to break the bond between the two? That’s still an issue today, something which is no longer an issue with Intel due to their switch to LGA way back in the socket 775 days. I for one would be very happy if AMD switched to LGA but I believe this hasn’t happened as of yet due to backwards compatibility for older motherboards with newer CPUs. Anyway, rant over. Lets take a look at the differences between AMD and Intel CPUs.
As you can see from the image above, the AMD chip is quite a bit larger than the Intel chip.
Bigger doesn’t always mean better, though. The heat spreader is not actually much taller (if at all) than, even though it looks like it.
The difference between AMD and Intel is immediately obvious. AMD has pins, Intel does not. Long gone are those days where you could bend a pin on an Intel CPU, unfortunately AMD have yet to follow with this one as mentioned previously.
AMD Test Setup:
CPUs: AMD Piledriver FX-4350, FX-6350 & FX-8350
Motherboard: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
RAM: G.SKILL RipJawsX 2400MHz CAS 11
Graphics card: BFG GTX295
Intel Test Setup:
CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K & Intel Core i7-3770K
Motherboard: ASUS Sabertooth Z77
RAM: G.SKILL RipJawsX 2400MHz CAS 11
Graphics card: BFG GTX295
Methodology:
All benchmarks will be run on a fresh install of Windows 7 64-bit to ensure that there are minimal background processes taking place to give you a better idea of the true performance behind the processor(s).
Benchmarks:
AIDA64 – CPU & Memory Tests
CINEBENCH 11.5
SiSoftware SANDRA 2013 – CPU & Memory Tests
X264 HD Version 5
I won’t go into detail about the Intel system due to the fact that they are only used in this review to show comparisons, and this review isn’t about the Intel chips. This review is about the AMD chips so I will go into greater depth on those CPUs instead. I’m sure that is what you lot are after anyway… right?
Before I start, I should mention that I used a maximum of 1.5 volts on the CPUs. Note that the LLC (Load Line Calibration) is set to Extreme in the BIOS, hence why the CPU voltages show as 1.524 volts and not 1.5 volts.The reason for this is that it is still considered relatively “safe” and my cooling set up could handle it. I would be cautious advising such a voltage on unsuitable cooling. Only the FX-8350 pushed the Silver Arrow Extreme to its real limits but the voltage had to be kept the same in order to allow for a fair test.
The IMC voltage was set to 1.3 volts (the Sabertooth seems to think 1.4 volts is fine!) to keep it happy with the 2400MHz kit of RAM that’s installed.
I’ll start off with the quad core, the FX-4350 and work my way up through the chain. This CPU comes clocked at 4.2GHz at stock which is a high clock speed to begin with. However, the good news is that the Sabertooth puts it at only 1.33 volts for that speed which means it should have a fairly high amount of wiggle room left if we push it up to 1.5 volts. Well, in fact, I managed to push it to 5.1GHz without any hassles at all. It happily completed every single test that I threw at it, even being bombarded with 100% load for over an hour.
Moving on to the hex core, the FX-6350 was next on the torture list. The FX-6350 comes clocked at 3.9GHz at stock which is lower than the quad and octa core variants. Although this may seem like a downside, it isn’t. It still managed to overclock to 5GHz and remain stable with 1.5 volts.
It is 100MHz slower than the quad core but this could be down to the silicone lottery rather than it just being that way. Either way, 5GHz is a great result.
Finally, we have the octa core on show and is just as good of an overclocker as the rest. The only thing I appear to be limited by is the voltage and the temperatures it hits. It easily clocked up to 5GHz without any effort at all and by setting the CPU voltage to 1.5 volts. It remained completely stable throughout testing, even if the temperatures were border line too high. However, it remained within thermal limitations (just) so this is happily classed as a pass by me.
So, it seems that these chips can hit 5GHz without little effort and providing that your cooling is able to cope with the heat which they kick out. However, what does this mean in terms of performance when they are stacked against an Intel variant? A 5GHz, eight core CPU is definitely something which is something worth bragging over. Although, the performance is probably more important than those seeking some 5GHz E-peen.
This simple integer benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and the misprediction penalties of the CPU. It finds the solutions for the classic “Queens problem” on a 10 by 10 sized chessboard. At the same clock speed theoretically the processor with the shorter pipeline and smaller misprediction penalties will attain higher benchmark scores. For example — with HyperThreading disabled — the Intel Northwood core processors get higher scores than the Intel Prescott core based ones due to the 20-step vs 31-step long pipeline. CPU Queen test uses integer MMX, SSE2 and SSSE3 optimizations.
SANDRA 2013 is a pretty stringent benchmark, capable of testing your systems limits. It is a pretty extensive suite of benchmarks but i have narrowed down the more relevant ones to compare performance.
x264 HD Benchmark is a benchmark that allows you to measure how fast your PC can encode a 1080p video clip into a high quality x264 video file.
It allows for an easy comparison because everyone running it will use the same video clip and software. The x264 video encoder has a fairly accurate internal benchmark (in frames per second) for each pass of the video encode and it also uses multi-core processors very efficiently. All these factors make the x264 HD Benchmark an ideal tool in comparing the video encoding performance of different processors and systems
In order to find out the idle wattage of the processor(s), I booted the system and let it sit in Windows for five minutes without touching it to let it truly settle. The lowest value reported over the space of 10 seconds was then reported. For the load wattages, I loaded the CPU with Cinebench which gives the CPU a quick 100% blasting and then the maximum numbers were recorded and noted down. I opted to not use Prime95 as that seems to make the AMD CPUs chew more power than you’d ever imagine possible. It’s a well-known problem and therefore I avoided it.
Well, well, well… where to begin with this one? Truthfully, I’m not completely sure. So, lets just dive in and battle through it. Starting with the overclocking of these chips…
As seen in the review, these chips all managed to hit 5GHz or even 5.1GHz with air cooling. Granted it is a top-end air cooler, it shows you that it is possible to hit these clock speeds on air. For those of you thinking that a 5GHz chip must be a monster and perform like an unstoppable beast, I would have to caution you in your thinking there when you compare it to a more expensive counterpart from Intel. In some instances which have been witnessed during this review, the eight core from AMD falls short of a CPU with half the cores, without Hyper Threading. It’s not ideal by any means. However, having said that, I do feel that these CPUs do have a place in the market, and that one would be in the area where people cannot afford to splash out on high-end Intel parts but they still want a capable CPU – AMD fit that bill perfectly.
Power consumption is still somewhat of an issue with the AMD CPUs, and it is surprising how much power they actually do draw. It would be fantastic if AMD could get these numbers down but from a personal prospective, I cannot see it happening any time soon as they’ve been stuck on a 125w TDP for years and years now. Nothing seems to suggest (to me) that this would change soon which is a shame. Perhaps Steamroller (next generation) will see these numbers come down. Once you overclock these CPUs, especially the FX-8350, the power consumption shoots through the roof and there’s no stopping it.
Right, lets talk video encoding performance. Now, of course this is only one example as I used X264 but this is a very common program to use to benchmark the video encoding power which is why I opted to use it. I ran the latest version so that it was a full 1080P render (rather than version 4 which is 720P) as that is what a lot of people are rendering today. Video rendering by nature (due to the software) always loved to use more cores and threads which should have made the FX-8350 shine and it should have allowed it to have performed much better than it did.
It got beaten by the overclocked i5-3570K in the first pass but it pulled ahead in the second passing, although I suspect the 400MHz difference between the two played a big part in that. Both the quad and hex core chips fell horrifically short of the i5 and even further behind the i7. Even when are running at 5GHz, they just cannot keep up with a stock clocked i5-3570K. However, they did still get the job done, at almost half the price of an i5, it just means that rendering times will be that much longer.
When these CPUs were put through their paces in Cinebench, it showed how much of a performance difference there is between Intel and AMD. Cinebench renders an image using on the CPU cores and it renders a a block at a time per CPU core. IE: Four cores means it will render four parts of the image at a time, six will render six and so on, until the rendering of the image is complete. The faster it completes the render, the higher your score will be. The FX-4350 was bottom of the bunch, even when overclocked to 5.
1GHz, it couldn’t compete with a six core FX-6350 at stock. The FX-6350 manages to edge out a win over the i5 at stock speeds when it is clocked to 5GHz but it loses out when the i5 is overclocked to 4.6GHz which coincidentally also beats the FX-8350 at stock clock speeds. The fastest of the AMD bunch is obviously going to be the one with the most cores so the overclocked FX-8350 comes out in second place and it is rivalled by the i7 although it loses out once the overclocked i7 comes into play. Unfortunately for AMD, this shows us exactly how much work they need to put into their next CPUs in order to begin the long catch up with Intel. Something with half the amount of cores manages to maintain a steady and fairly healthy lead.
In order to make sure that this isn’t the most dragged out conclusion in the world, I will carry on to actually summarise the results as best as I can. Judging by the graphs and my testing which was done in this review, it is clear to see how AMD stack up against Intel.
However, do not take this as a negative point and keep in mind that the Intel CPUs are vastly more expensive than the AMD offerings.
AMD may not have the best performing chip on the market, but they certainly do provide excellent bang for buck ratio which makes them an ideal choice to go for if you are on a budget but still want a very capable system. I feel that the FX-4350 and FX-6350 definitely deserve our value award. I feel that the FX-8350 is priced a little too steeply, though.
[ratings]
AMD FX-8350 vs. AMD FX-4350
Cpu Benchmark con puntos de referencia
| AMD FX-8350 | AMD FX-4350 | |
| 4.00 GHz | Frecuencia | 4.20 GHz |
| 4.20 GHz | Turbo (1 núcleo) | 4.30 GHz |
| 4.10 GHz | Turbo (todos los núcleos) | 4.30 GHz |
| 8 | Núcleos | 4 |
| No | Hyperthreading? | No |
| sí | ¿Overclocking? | sí |
| normal | Arquitectura central | normal |
| no iGPU | GPU | no iGPU |
| Versión de DirectX | ||
Max. muestra |
||
| Memoria | DDR3-1866 | |
| 2 | Canales de memoria | 2 |
| Max. Memoria | ||
| sí | ECC | sí |
| — | L2 Cache | — |
| 8.00 MB | L3 Cache | 8.00 MB |
| Versión PCIe | ||
| PCIe lanes | ||
| 32 nm | Tecnología | 32 nm |
| AM3+ | Socket | AM3+ |
| 125 W | TDP | 125 W |
| AMD-V | Virtualización | AMD-V |
| Q4/2012 | Fecha de lanzamiento | Q2/2013 |
| mostrar más detalles | mostrar más detalles |
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R23 es el sucesor de Cinebench R20 y también se basa en Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 es un software utilizado en todo el mundo para crear formas 3D.
La prueba de un solo núcleo solo usa un núcleo de CPU, la cantidad de núcleos o la capacidad de hyperthreading no cuentan.
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R23 es el sucesor de Cinebench R20 y también se basa en Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 es un software utilizado en todo el mundo para crear formas 3D. La prueba de múltiples núcleos involucra todos los núcleos de la CPU y tiene una gran ventaja de hyperthreading.
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 es el sucesor de Cinebench R15 y también se basa en Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 es un software utilizado en todo el mundo para crear formas 3D. La prueba de un solo núcleo solo usa un núcleo de CPU, la cantidad de núcleos o la capacidad de hyperthreading no cuentan.
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 es el sucesor de Cinebench R15 y también se basa en Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 es un software utilizado en todo el mundo para crear formas 3D. La prueba de múltiples núcleos involucra todos los núcleos de la CPU y tiene una gran ventaja de hyperthreading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 es el sucesor de Cinebench 11.5 y también se basa en Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 es un software utilizado en todo el mundo para crear formas 3D. La prueba de un solo núcleo solo usa un núcleo de CPU, la cantidad de núcleos o la capacidad de hyperthreading no cuentan.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 es el sucesor de Cinebench 11.5 y también se basa en Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 es un software utilizado en todo el mundo para crear formas 3D. La prueba de múltiples núcleos involucra todos los núcleos de la CPU y tiene una gran ventaja de hyperthreading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 es un banco de pruebas de plataformas cruzadas que utiliza en gran medida la memoria del sistema. Una memoria rápida empujará mucho el resultado. La prueba de un solo núcleo solo usa un núcleo de CPU, la cantidad de núcleos o la capacidad de hyperthreading no cuentan.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 es un banco de pruebas de plataformas cruzadas que utiliza en gran medida la memoria del sistema.
Una memoria rápida empujará mucho el resultado. La prueba de múltiples núcleos involucra todos los núcleos de la CPU y tiene una gran ventaja de hyperthreading.
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
Blender es un software de gráficos 3D gratuito para renderizar (crear) cuerpos 3D, que también se pueden texturizar y animar en el software. El punto de referencia de Blender crea escenas predefinidas y mide el tiempo requerido para toda la escena. Cuanto menor sea el tiempo requerido, mejor. Seleccionamos bmw27 como escenario de referencia.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 es un banco de pruebas de plataformas cruzadas que utiliza en gran medida la memoria del sistema. Una memoria rápida empujará mucho el resultado. La prueba de un solo núcleo solo usa un núcleo de CPU, la cantidad de núcleos o la capacidad de hyperthreading no cuentan.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 es un banco de pruebas de plataformas cruzadas que utiliza en gran medida la memoria del sistema.
Una memoria rápida empujará mucho el resultado. La prueba de múltiples núcleos involucra todos los núcleos de la CPU y tiene una gran ventaja de hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 se basa en Cinema 4D Suite, un software que es popular para generar formularios y otras cosas en 3D. La prueba de un solo núcleo solo usa un núcleo de CPU, la cantidad de núcleos o la capacidad de hyperthreading no cuentan.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 se basa en Cinema 4D Suite, un software que es popular para generar formularios y otras cosas en 3D. La prueba de múltiples núcleos involucra todos los núcleos de la CPU y tiene una gran ventaja de hyperthreading.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Algunas de las CPU que se enumeran a continuación han sido evaluadas por CPU-Benchmark. Sin embargo, la mayoría de las CPU no han sido probadas y los resultados han sido estimados por una fórmula propietaria secreta de CPU-Benchmark.
Como tales, no reflejan con precisión los valores reales de marca de la CPU de Passmark y no están respaldados por PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Comparación popular
AMD FX-8350 vs. AMD FX-4350 — Prueba y especificaciones de Cpu Benchmark
4.7 of 36 rating(s)
10-Way CPU Shoot-Out for Gamers
Article Type:
Review
— CPU Review
Teaser Icon:
Introduction
| Price | Cores | Clock | |
| Intel Core i7-2600k | $339 | 4 | 3.4 GHz |
| Intel Core i5-2380p | $194 | 4 | 3.1 GHz |
| Intel Core i3-2130 | $129 | 2 | 3.4 GHz |
| AMD FX-8350 | $199 | 8 | 4.0 GHz |
| AMD FX-8150 | $174 | 8 | 3.6 GHz |
| AMD FX-6350 | $139 | 6 | 3.9 GHz |
| AMD FX-4350 | $119 | 4 | 4. 2 GHz |
| AMD A10-6800K | $139 | 4 | 4.1 GHz |
| AMD A10-6700 | $129 | 4 | 3.7 GHz |
| AMD A10-5800K | $129 | 4 | 3.8 GHz |
It’s a wide, wide processing world out there. A whole host of processing options are now available on the market. They run the gamut of extremes between high efficiency and high power. More and more are coming with built-in graphics, and those graphic options are now actually usable.
Modern processors contain from 2-8 processing cores, with speeds ranging from 3.1GHz to 4.2GHz. This wide range of options creates a lot of price posts, with mainstream prices ranging from $120 to $350.
This mix of cores and speed produces a wide range of performance ratings in CPU-intensive tasks, but how does that translate to gaming which is more GPU dependent? Is a high-end processor even needed for gaming?
Should you save money on a CPU purchase, and instead put that towards a better (or possibly 2nd) GPU? Or should that money go to better equipment such as an SSD, higher quality input devices, or additional monitors for Surround/Eyefinity?
These are the questions we hope to answer here.
CPU Power
| Geekbench 3 | Cinebench 11 | |||||||||||
| 32-bit | 64-bit | 32-bit | 64-bit | |||||||||
| Single | Multi | Single | Multi | Single | Multi | Single | Multi | |||||
| Intel Core i7-2600k | 3133 | 11826 | 3275 | 12287 | 1.37 | 6.43 | 1.52 | 6.88 | ||||
| Intel Core i5-2380p | 2915 | 8994 | 3005 | 9466 | 1.23 | 4.58 | 1.36 | 5.07 | ||||
| Intel Core i3-2130 | 2707 | 5734 | 2818 | 5941 | 1. |
3.04 | 1.33 | 3.24 | ||||
| AMD FX-8350 | 2215 | 11820 | 2448 | 12752 | 1.03 | 6.60 | 1.10 | 6.86 | ||||
| AMD FX-8150 | 2106 | 10285 | 2282 | 10947 | 0.94 | 5.66 | 1.01 | 5.95 | ||||
| AMD FX-6350 | 2205 | 8905 | 2461 | 9733 | 1.02 | 4.79 | 1.09 | 5.01 | ||||
| AMD FX-4350 | 2256 | 6642 | 2529 | 7273 | 1.04 | 3.43 | 1.11 | 3.56 | ||||
| AMD A10-6800K | 2240 | 6458 | 2509 | 7066 | 1.06 | 3.40 | 1.13 | 3.53 | ||||
| AMD A10-6700 | 2208 | 6260 | 2455 | 6827 | 1.03 | 3.16 | 1.10 | 3.32 | ||||
| AMD A10-5800K | 2141 | 6109 | 2409 | 6650 | 1. 00 |
3.13 | 1.07 | 3.27 | ||||
To compare the processing capabilities of each chip, I tested them with GeekBench 3, and CineBench 11. We tested each in 32-bit and 64-bit modes. The data presented here shows the results for both single core and multi core performance.
Looking at the single core GeekBench results, you can see performance improvements between generations and/or series. For example, there is a noticeable improvement between the AMD FX-8150 and the FX-8350. However, the results between the FX-4350, FX-6350 and FX-8350 are similar.
We see similar single core results with the AMD APUs. There is a measurable difference between the A10-5800K and the A10-6800K, while the performance between the A10-6700 and the A10-6800K are similar.
Conversely there is significant single core performance increase between the Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7.
Comparing the single core and multi-core numbers allows us to understand how efficiently the chips multiply their performance across the whole die.
The main comparison is to look at the multi-core performance between the chips, which allows us to compare overall processing performance.
Finally we look at the performance versus price. Bigger chips give us better performance, but are they worth the price premium? The APUs show a slow stead performance improvement, with little change in price.
The AMD FX chips show a rapid performance improvement, with relatively small price increases. The FX-6350 provides ~50% performance improvement over the A10-5800K and A10-6700, with only a $20 increase in price. The FX-8350 almost doubles the performance of these chips, with a ~50% increase in price.
The Core i3-2130 prices right along with the AMD APUs, but the performance is much lower. The Core i5-2380p comes in at just under the FX-6350, but prices at 50% higher. The Core i7-2600k performs just under the FX-8350, but costs 70% more.
From a price/performance perspective, the AMD FX chips provide the best value.
But the question still remains on how CPU performance actually translated into improved gaming performance.
Benchmarking
This project was weeks in the testing. I tested each of the 10 processors, across three games, each of those three GPUs, in both 1080p HD and Eyefinity 3x 1080p HD. This results in a ton of tests — 180 to be exact (10 x 3 x 3 x 2).
Each CPU was tested at stock clock speeds, with 8GB of RAM in Dual-Channel configuration. The GPUs were also run at stock clock speed.
PLEASE NOTE: When I started this testing, I tested on the Radeon HD 7790, Radeon HD 7870 GHz and Radeon HD 7970 GHz. In my final days of testing, AMD re-branded and relaunched these cards as the Radeon R7 260X, R9 270X and the R9 280X. This article we published three weeks ago confirms that the new cards perform identically to old cards.
Based on this finding, we are using the new branding and pricing for the article. This allows us to provide information to users on current products, and allows us to use current market pricing in our analysis.
Metro Last Light
For Metro Last Light I used the be built-in benchmarking tool. The test was run at «Very High» quality, with AF 16X texture filtering, Low motion blur and Normal tessellation.
The standard settings on the benchmark run for three loops. I used FRAPS to capture the performance data of the third and last loop.
| Metro Last Light — 1080p HD | Metro Last Light — 1080p Eyefinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| R7 260X | R9 270X | R9 280X | R7 260X | R9 270X | R9 280X | |||||||||||||||||||
| Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | |||||||
| Intel Core i7-2600k | 17 | 27. 3 |
43 | 25 | 36.9 | 60 | 33 | 53.6 | 87 | 7 | 11.1 | 16 | 10 | 15.3 | 22 | 16 | 24.1 | 36 | ||||||
| Intel Core i5-2380p | 17 | 27.2 | 43 | 24 | 36.8 | 60 | 33 | 53.4 | 86 | 7 | 11.0 | 16 | 9 | 15.3 | 22 | 15 | 24.1 | 36 | ||||||
| Intel Core i3-2130 | 18 | 27.1 | 43 | 24 | 36.1 | 57 | 22 | 49.1 | 75 | 7 | 11.0 | 16 | 10 | 15.2 | 22 | 17 | 24.2 | 36 | ||||||
| AMD FX-8350 | 18 | 27.1 | 43 | 25 | 36. 9 |
60 | 34 | 53.0 | 84 | 7 | 11.1 | 16 | 10 | 15.3 | 22 | 16 | 24.1 | 36 | ||||||
| AMD FX-8150 | 18 | 27.0 | 42 | 25 | 36.9 | 60 | 29 | 52.6 | 80 | 7 | 11.0 | 16 | 10 | 15.3 | 22 | 16 | 24.2 | 36 | ||||||
| AMD FX-6350 | 17 | 27.0 | 43 | 25 | 36.9 | 60 | 29 | 52.5 | 82 | 7 | 11.0 | 16 | 9 | 15.3 | 22 | 16 | 24.2 | 36 | ||||||
| AMD FX-4350 | 18 | 27.1 | 43 | 23 | 36.1 | 59 | 23 | 49. 5 |
75 | 8 | 11.0 | 16 | 10 | 15.3 | 22 | 16 | 23.8 | 35 | ||||||
| AMD A10-6800K | 18 | 26.8 | 43 | 20 | 35.7 | 55 | 21 | 43.5 | 67 | 7 | 11.0 | 16 | 9 | 15.2 | 22 | 16 | 23.8 | 35 | ||||||
| AMD A10-6700 | 17 | 26.7 | 42 | 17 | 35.1 | 53 | 20 | 42.0 | 65 | 7 | 10.9 | 16 | 9 | 15.2 | 22 | 15 | 23.8 | 35 | ||||||
| AMD A10-5800K | 16 | 26.6 | 43 | 14 | 34.5 | 51 | 18 | 40.9 | 63 | 7 | 11.0 | 16 | 10 | 15. 1 |
22 | 14 | 23.6 | 35 | ||||||
Looking at 1080p HD widescreen performance, the different CPUs provide absolutely no performance improvement for the R7 260X. There is less than 1fps difference between the lowest and highest processors. This is well within the margin of error.
For the R9 270X, the AMD FX processors provide a frame or two improvement over the AMD APUs, but performance levels off there through the Core processors.
There is marked improvement through the performance of the R9 280X. The AMD FX processors provide ~10fps improvement over the AMD APUs, which is a roundly 25% performance increase. For the FX-4350 and FX-6350, there is no price increase required. The FX-8350 gives an extra frame or two, but comes at a 50% higher price tag.
The Core i5-2380p performs similar to the FX-8350, at a similar price point. However, the Core i7-2600k offers no performance in crease, but costs significantly more than the other chips.
For Eyefinity, all chips perform within 1fps of each other, for each respective GPU. There is no value provided in purchasing significantly higher priced chips.
Article Type:
Article
Teaser Icon:
Benchmarking (cont.)
DiRT Showdown
DiRT Showdown was tested at the Ultra setting pre-set, with 4X MSAA enabled. The test was run three separate times, with the testing done on the third pass. FRAPS was manually started with the benchmark fly-by of the track. It was subsequently stopped right before the car crossed the finish line, prior to the slow motion scene of the finish.
Please note that the DiRT Showdown test is not a canned demo like Metro Last Light or Unigine Valley. It is a sample race in a figure-eight style track. The cars jockey for position with the driver AI, and each run is inherently different.
Small variances between runs should be discounted, due to this variation between the actual tests.
I did toss out any test run that had any crashes or a stuck car.
| DiRT Showdown — 1080p HD | DiRT Showdown — 1080p Eyefinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| R7 260X | R9 270X | R9 280X | R7 260X | R9 270X | R9 280X | |||||||||||||||||||
| Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | |||||||
| Intel Core i7-2600k | 37 | 44.8 | 62 | 47 | 58.5 | 79 | 61 | 75. 8 |
102 | 17 | 20.6 | 29 | 22 | 27.5 | 40 | 32 | 39.2 | 55 | ||||||
| Intel Core i5-2380p | 37 | 44.9 | 62 | 46 | 58.4 | 79 | 61 | 75.8 | 101 | 16 | 20.4 | 29 | 22 | 27.5 | 39 | 32 | 39.4 | 54 | ||||||
| Intel Core i3-2130 | 36 | 45.4 | 62 | 47 | 56.9 | 79 | 58 | 76.1 | 103 | 16 | 20.5 | 29 | 22 | 27.3 | 39 | 32 | 39.3 | 55 | ||||||
| AMD FX-8350 | 35 | 42.7 | 59 | 47 | 56.4 | 79 | 61 | 73. |
99 | 16 | 20.0 | 28 | 22 | 27.4 | 39 | 32 | 39.3 | 54 | ||||||
| AMD FX-8150 | 36 | 43.0 | 43 | 46 | 57.4 | 79 | 53 | 66.0 | 97 | 16 | 20.0 | 28 | 22 | 27.3 | 39 | 28 | 39.1 | 54 | ||||||
| AMD FX-6350 | 36 | 43.4 | 59 | 48 | 57.9 | 78 | 60 | 71.8 | 100 | 15 | 19.9 | 28 | 23 | 27.2 | 39 | 30 | 39.0 | 54 | ||||||
| AMD FX-4350 | 34 | 42.7 | 59 | 44 | 57.1 | 77 | 55 | 63. |
96 | 16 | 19.9 | 29 | 22 | 27.5 | 39 | 31 | 38.7 | 54 | ||||||
| AMD A10-6800K | 35 | 43.2 | 58 | 46 | 55.2 | 76 | 51 | 63.3 | 88 | 16 | 19.8 | 28 | 22 | 27.2 | 38 | 32 | 38.5 | 53 | ||||||
| AMD A10-6700 | 34 | 41.8 | 58 | 47 | 55.9 | 76 | 48 | 60.4 | 89 | 16 | 20.0 | 28 | 22 | 27.4 | 38 | 32 | 38.9 | 53 | ||||||
| AMD A10-5800K | 35 | 43.4 | 58 | 44 | 55.7 | 76 | 44 | 59. |
89 | 16 | 19.8 | 28 | 22 | 27.0 | 38 | 30 | 38.3 | 53 | ||||||
Widescreen performance here mirrors that of Metro Last Light. There is at most a frame or two difference across the processors for both the R7 260X and the R9 270X.
With the R9 280X, performance starts out similar to the R7 260X, with the AMD APU processors. The AMD APUs are effectively throttling the R& 260X.
We start to see the impacts of the additional processing power at the FX-6350 and FX-8350. We see an increase of 8-10fps with these chips, over the AMD APUs.
The Core i3 performs quite well here, especially considering the lower price. The Core i5 performs in line with the FX-8350, again for a comparable price. There is no improvement to be found with the significantly more expensive Core i7 offering.
As we saw before with Metro Last Light, here is no performance increase from a larger processor, for Eyefinity or Surround users running a single GPU.
Unigine Valley
I have previously used the Unigine Heaven demo in GPU benchmarking. For this test I have upgraded to the Unigine Valley demo. The test was run at «High» quality, with 2X AA.
I let the benchmark load and run through a full cycle, and manually triggered the benchmark mode and then FRAPS when the images first appear on screen. I stopped FRAPS as the demo faded out.
| Unigine Valley — 1080p HD | Unigine Valley — 1080p Eyefinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| R7 260X | R9 270X | R9 280X | R7 260X | R9 270X | R9 280X | |||||||||||||||||||
| Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | Min | Avg | Max | |||||||
| Intel Core i7-2600k | 15 | 31. |
58 | 26 | 46.1 | 83 | 35 | 66.6 | 124 | 2 | 10.5 | 25 | 6 | 16.9 | 35 | 12 | 25.3 | 53 | ||||||
| Intel Core i5-2380p | 16 | 31.7 | 59 | 25 | 46.1 | 84 | 33 | 65.8 | 123 | 2 | 10.7 | 25 | 7 | 16.9 | 35 | 11 | 25.4 | 53 | ||||||
| Intel Core i3-2130 | 15 | 31.7 | 59 | 25 | 46.1 | 84 | 33 | 64.7 | 114 | 2 | 10.7 | 25 | 7 | 16.9 | 35 | 11 | 25.4 | 53 | ||||||
| AMD FX-8350 | 16 | 31. |
58 | 22 | 45.8 | 83 | 23 | 62.5 | 108 | 1 | 10.2 | 24 | 7 | 16.9 | 35 | 11 | 25.3 | 52 | ||||||
| AMD FX-8150 | 13 | 31.3 | 60 | 15 | 44.2 | 83 | 16 | 58.2 | 92 | 1 | 10.6 | 24 | 6 | 16.6 | 35 | 10 | 25.3 | 53 | ||||||
| AMD FX-6350 | 15 | 31.6 | 58 | 24 | 45.6 | 83 | 24 | 64.5 | 101 | 2 | 10.6 | 24 | 7 | 16.9 | 35 | 11 | 25.3 | 52 | ||||||
| AMD FX-4350 | 14 | 31. |
58 | 25 | 45.9 | 84 | 24 | 63.3 | 99 | 2 | 10.7 | 24 | 7 | 16.9 | 35 | 11 | 25.3 | 53 | ||||||
| AMD A10-6800K | 14 | 31.3 | 58 | 23 | 45.2 | 83 | 24 | 59.7 | 91 | 2 | 10.5 | 24 | 6 | 16.8 | 35 | 11 | 25.2 | 52 | ||||||
| AMD A10-6700 | 16 | 31.3 | 58 | 22 | 44.6 | 82 | 22 | 58.5 | 92 | 2 | 10.0 | 23 | 6 | 16.9 | 36 | 11 | 25.2 | 52 | ||||||
| AMD A10-5800K | 15 | 31. |
58 | 22 | 44.8 | 82 | 21 | 57.7 | 91 | 2 | 10.3 | 25 | 7 | 16.8 | 35 | 11 | 25.1 | 52 | ||||||
With our third test, we are seeing a consistent pattern. There is little to no benefit of any higher powered processing unit, when paired with the R9 270X or the R9 280X.
With the R9 280X, we see an uptick in performance with the FX-4350. However, the performance across the FX series is fairly consistent. As we saw previously, there is an additional frame or two to be gained with the Core CPUs.
As before, the Core i5 and the FX-8350 offer similar price and performance. And, the price/performance ratio of the Core i7 is lacking compared to other chips.
And again we see a third data set in a similar trend. There is no performance increase to be had with a more powerful processor when running Eyefinity or Surround.
Conclusions
| Component Prices | R7 260X | R9 270X | R9 280X | |
| $139 | $199 | $299 | ||
| Intel Core i7-2600k | $339 | $478 | $538 | $638 |
| Intel Core i5-2380p | $194 | $333 | $393 | $493 |
| Intel Core i3-2130 | $129 | $268 | $328 | $428 |
| AMD FX-8350 | $199 | $338 | $398 | $498 |
| AMD FX-8150 | $174 | $313 | $373 | $473 |
| AMD FX-6350 | $139 | $278 | $338 | $438 |
| AMD FX-4350 | $119 | $258 | $318 | $418 |
| AMD A10-6800K | $139 | $278 | $338 | $438 |
| AMD A10-6700 | $129 | $268 | $328 | $428 |
| AMD A10-5800K | $129 | $268 | $328 | $428 |
The results here honestly surprised me. I had expected increasingly powerful processors to provide at least some performance increase at each step of the way. And the results show that this simply isn’t the case.
The findings are as such…
Widescreen — 1080p HD
- There is absolutely no performance improvement to be had on a single HD screen, when paired with a Radeon R7 260X.
- There are minor performance improvements in 1080p HD, when paired with a Radeon HD R9 270X. These improvements peak at the R9 270X, with no improvements beyond that.
- There are noticeable improvements in performance with CPUs, when paired with the R9 280X. These hit a plateau around the FX-6350 or the FX-8350, with some small performance improvements in the Intel Core processors.
Eyefinity — 3x 1080p HD
- There is absolutely no performance improvement to be had in an Eyefinity or Surround configuration, when paired with any single GPU
General Observations
- There is no need for a Core i7-2600k, for gaming.
This processor offers no realistic performance improvements in games, and cost significantly more than other chips.
- The «sweet spot» for CPUs seems to be at the AMD FX-6350 or Intel i3-2130
- There is good money to be saved in CPU purchase that can go into a better or 2nd GPU, or an SSD, etc.
We are really at a time of processor power where gamers need to rethink their old paradigms. We’ve always looked to the «biggest and best», or at least as close to that as we can get. These processor findings challenge that thinking.
Many gamers would turn their nose up at the idea of using an APU for their central processing. And many have similar reactions to lower end AMD FX processors, and especially the Intel Core i3. However, the data tells us they should give these options consideration.
For example… A Core i3-3120 paired with a Radeon R9 270X costs a similar amount of money as a Core i5-2380p paired with a Radeon R7 260X. However, the first pair offer significantly better performance.
Additionally… an AMD FX-6350 saves you $60 over the cost of the Core i5-2380p. This $60 pays for an upgrade from the R7 260X to the R9 270X. And it would pay for the majority of an upgrade from an R9 270X, to an R9 280X. It also pays for a 64GB SSD boot drive.
Only when paired with a high end GPU like the Radeon R9 280X do bigger more expensive CPUs make a difference. An even then the value tops out with the FX-8350 and the Core i7-2380p.
Unless you’re creating games, rendering video, compiling large amounts of code, or some other processor intensive task — you’re wasting your money on a processor over $200. It comes down to whether you are consuming media, or creating it. You need the horsepower for creation — not consumption.
Even with the data, I keep finding myself wanting to type something like, «The FX-6350 is a great performer, but you may want to go ahead and spend the little extra for the faster FX-8350». The hardware paradigm shift even needs to take place with me. Given the current economic times, we all need to ensure we getting the best value for our money and not spending needlessly. And I’m hoping this article helps you do that.
Next Steps
I need to test with a multi-GPU setup. This additional processing power may open up CPU performance in Eyefinity, and/or offer a more traditional scaling in HD widescreen.
The testing in this article was intensive, and took weeks to complete. At this time, I simply don’t have the time to go through another 180 testing routines. I used the same components to test the AMD APU and FX chips. At this point I don’t have the time to go through all of those hardware swaps and rebuilds. Additionally I sold my Intel Core i7 rig, and no longer have access to that hardware.
Given their general improvement over the AMD APUs, and their similar performance to the Intel Core chips, I think they will be a good indicator of performance.
| 1 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 9 5950X |
$ 710. |
||||
| 2 | 2021 | Intel Core i7-12700K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i7-12700K |
$ 470.0 | ||||
| 3 | 2021 | Intel Core i9-12900K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i9-12900K |
$ 590.0 | ||||
| 4 | 2022 | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D |
$ 450.0 | ||||
| 5 | 2021 | Intel Core i9-11900K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i9-11900K |
$ 488.0 | ||||
| 6 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 9 5900X |
$ 499.0 | ||||
| 7 | 2021 | Intel Core i5-12600K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i5-12600K |
$ 290. |
||||
| 8 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 5800X |
$ 399.0 | ||||
| 9 | 2021 | Intel Core i7-11700K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i7-11700K |
$ 410.0 | ||||
| 10 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 5600X |
$ 299.0 | ||||
| 11 | 2020 | Intel Core i9-10900K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i9-10900K |
$ 590.0 | ||||
| 12 | 2020 | Intel Core i7-10700K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i7-10700K |
$ 409.1 | ||||
| 13 | 2018 | Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i9-9900K |
$ 835.0 | ||||
| 14 | 2021 | Intel Core i5-11600K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i5-11600K |
$ 262.0 | ||||
| 15 | 2018 | Intel Core i9-9900 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i9-9900 |
$ 440.0 | ||||
| 16 | 2022 | Intel Core i5-12400
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i5-12400 |
$ 143.0 | ||||
| 17 | 2018 | Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-9700K |
$ 410.0 | ||||
| 18 | 2021 | Intel Core i5-11400
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i5-11400 |
$ 182. |
||||
| 19 | 2018 | Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-8086K |
$ 553.0 | ||||
| 20 | 2018 | Intel Core i7-9700 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-9700 |
$ 330.0 | ||||
| 21 | 2018 | Intel Core i7-9700F @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-9700F |
$ 368.0 | ||||
| 22 | 2020 | Intel Core i5-10600K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i5-10600K |
$ 236.8 | ||||
| 23 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-8700K @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-8700K |
$ 369.9 | ||||
| 24 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7940X @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i9-7940X |
$ 1,192.1 | ||||
| 25 | 2020 | Intel Core i5-10400
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i5-10400 |
$ 182.0 | ||||
| 26 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 9 3900X |
$ 499.0 | ||||
| 27 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 9 3950X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 9 3950X |
$ 750.0 | ||||
| 28 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 3700X |
$ 330.0 | ||||
| 29 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 3800X |
$ 399.0 | ||||
| 30 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 3600X |
$ 249. |
||||
| 31 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-9600KF @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-9600KF |
$ 215.0 | ||||
| 32 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-9600K @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-9600K |
$ 280.0 | ||||
| 33 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3600
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 3600 |
$ 199.0 | ||||
| 34 | 2022 | AMD Ryzen 7 5700X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 5700X |
$ 300.0 | ||||
| 35 | 2022 | AMD Ryzen 5 5500
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 5500 |
$ 160.0 | ||||
| 36 | 2022 | Intel Core i3-12300
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i3-12300 |
$ 143. |
||||
| 37 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-8600K |
$ 377.7 | ||||
| 38 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7900X @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i9-7900X |
$ 1,380.0 | ||||
| 39 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7980XE @ 2.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i9-7980XE |
$ 2,005.5 | ||||
| 40 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3500X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 3500X |
$ 160.5 | ||||
| 41 | 2022 | Intel Core i3-12100
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i3-12100 |
$ 122.0 | ||||
| 42 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i7-8700 |
$ 454.5 | ||||
| 43 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7920X @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i9-7920X |
$ 1,096.7 | ||||
| 44 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7960X @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i9-7960X |
$ 2,000.0 | ||||
| 45 | 2019 | Intel Core i5-9400F @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-9400F |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 46 | 2019 | Intel Core i5-9400 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-9400 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 47 | 2021 | Intel Core i3-11300
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i3-11300 |
$ 143. |
||||
| 48 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3500
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 3500 |
$ 148.0 | ||||
| 49 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-8600 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-8600 |
$ 244.5 | ||||
| 50 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-7740X @ 4.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-7740X |
$ 349.0 | ||||
| 51 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 3 3300X |
$ 120.0 | ||||
| 52 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 3 3100
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 3 3100 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 53 | 2021 | Intel Core i3-11100
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i3-11100 |
$ 122. |
||||
| 54 | 2020 | Intel Core i3-10300
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i3-10300 |
$ 143.0 | ||||
| 55 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X |
$ 900.0 | ||||
| 56 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-8500 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-8500 |
$ 239.0 | ||||
| 57 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-7700K |
$ 355.0 | ||||
| 58 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-7820X @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-7820X |
$ 930.0 | ||||
| 59 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4. >> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4790K |
$ 307.0 | ||||
| 60 | 2020 | Intel Core i3-10100
>> compare FX-8350 vs Core i3-10100 |
$ 122.0 | ||||
| 61 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX |
$ 1,720.0 | ||||
| 62 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-7640X @ 4.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-7640X |
$ 250.0 | ||||
| 63 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-8400 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 64 | 2019 | Intel Core i3-9350KF @ 4.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-9350KF |
$ 224. |
||||
| 65 | 2019 | Intel Core i3-9320 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-9320 |
$ 162.0 | ||||
| 66 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-8350K @ 4.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-8350K |
$ 184.0 | ||||
| 67 | 2019 | Intel Core i3-9100F @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-9100F |
$ 105.0 | ||||
| 68 | 2019 | Intel Core i3-9100 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-9100 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 69 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-7600K @ 3.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-7600K |
$ 251.0 | ||||
| 70 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-6950X @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i7-6950X |
$ 1,576.0 | ||||
| 71 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
$ 680.0 | ||||
| 72 | 2015 | Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-6700K |
$ 335.0 | ||||
| 73 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-6900K @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-6900K |
$ 1,200.0 | ||||
| 74 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-7800X @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-7800X |
$ 370.0 | ||||
| 75 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 2700X |
$ 305. |
||||
| 76 | 2018 | Intel Core i3-8300 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-8300 |
$ 179.4 | ||||
| 77 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-7700 |
$ 325.1 | ||||
| 78 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-7600 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-7600 |
$ 240.0 | ||||
| 79 | 2015 | Intel Core i7-6700 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-6700 |
$ 433.7 | ||||
| 80 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-6800K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-6800K |
$ 420.0 | ||||
| 81 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-8100 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i3-8100 |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 82 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4770K |
$ 285.0 | ||||
| 83 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-4790 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4790 |
$ 279.0 | ||||
| 84 | 2015 | Intel Core i7-5775C @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-5775C |
$ 450.0 | ||||
| 85 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-5930K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-5930K |
$ 499.0 | ||||
| 86 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-6850K @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-6850K |
$ 550. |
||||
| 87 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 2600X |
$ 210.0 | ||||
| 88 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X |
$ 420.0 | ||||
| 89 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4770 |
$ 240.0 | ||||
| 90 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4771 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4771 |
$ 300.0 | ||||
| 91 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-4790S @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4790S |
$ 342.6 | ||||
| 92 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 7 2700
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 2700 |
$ 249. |
||||
| 93 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1900X |
$ 350.0 | ||||
| 94 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4770S @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4770S |
$ 250.0 | ||||
| 95 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4960X @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4960X |
$ 770.0 | ||||
| 96 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4690 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4690 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 97 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4690K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4690K |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 98 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4690S @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4690S |
$ 269.9 | ||||
| 99 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-6600K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-6600K |
$ 288.9 | ||||
| 100 | 2016 | Intel Core i5-7500 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-7500 |
$ 210.0 | ||||
| 101 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-5820K |
$ 300.0 | ||||
| 102 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-5960X @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-5960X |
$ 770.0 | ||||
| 103 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 5 2600
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 2600 |
$ 150. |
||||
| 104 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 1800X |
$ 250.0 | ||||
| 105 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3970X @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-3970X |
$ 954.0 | ||||
| 106 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 1600X |
$ 178.4 | ||||
| 107 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-7350K @ 4.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-7350K |
$ 230.0 | ||||
| 108 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4670 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4670 |
$ 188.0 | ||||
| 109 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4670K |
$ 250.0 | ||||
| 110 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-4670R @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4670R |
$ 276.0 | ||||
| 111 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-5675C @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-5675C |
$ 400.0 | ||||
| 112 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-6600 |
$ 220.0 | ||||
| 113 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-3770 |
$ 179.0 | ||||
| 114 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-3770K |
$ 249. |
||||
| 115 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-3960X @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-3960X |
$ 800.0 | ||||
| 116 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4930K |
$ 399.0 | ||||
| 117 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4590 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4590 |
$ 185.0 | ||||
| 118 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 1700X |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 119 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-7320 @ 4.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-7320 |
$ 174.8 | ||||
| 120 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4570 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4570 |
$ 175.0 | ||||
| 121 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4590S @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4590S |
$ 198.0 | ||||
| 122 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-7400 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-7400 |
$ 213.5 | ||||
| 123 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-2700K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-2700K |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 124 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3770S @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-3770S |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 125 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-3930K |
$ 399. |
||||
| 126 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4820K @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-4820K |
$ 500.0 | ||||
| 127 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 3400G |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 128 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-7300 @ 4.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-7300 |
$ 210.0 | ||||
| 129 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 1500X |
$ 144.9 | ||||
| 130 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 5 1600
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 1600 |
$ 155.0 | ||||
| 131 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 2400G |
$ 159. |
||||
| 132 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 7 1700
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 7 1700 |
$ 190.0 | ||||
| 133 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-6500 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-6500 |
$ 234.4 | ||||
| 134 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-2600 |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 135 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-2600K |
$ 198.0 | ||||
| 136 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3820 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-3820 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 137 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 3 3200G |
$ 99. |
||||
| 138 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3570 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3570 |
$ 140.0 | ||||
| 139 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3570K |
$ 144.0 | ||||
| 140 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4570S @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4570S |
$ 221.6 | ||||
| 141 | 2016 | Intel Core i5-6402P @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-6402P |
$ 190.0 | ||||
| 142 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 3 2200G |
$ 98.0 | ||||
| 143 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-7100 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i3-7100 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 144 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3550 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3550 |
$ 330.0 | ||||
| 145 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3550S @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3550S |
$ 341.0 | ||||
| 146 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3570S @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3570S |
$ 285.0 | ||||
| 147 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 3 1300X |
$ 125.0 | ||||
| 148 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-2550K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2550K |
$ 130. |
||||
| 149 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3470 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3470 |
$ 125.0 | ||||
| 150 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3475S @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3475S |
$ 143.5 | ||||
| 151 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4460 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4460 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 152 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4460S @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4460S |
$ 660.0 | ||||
| 153 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-6400 @ 2.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-6400 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 154 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4440 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4440 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 155 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4440S @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4440S |
$ 463.0 | ||||
| 156 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-2600S @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-2600S |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 157 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2500 |
$ 105.0 | ||||
| 158 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2500K |
$ 124.0 | ||||
| 159 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3450 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3450 |
$ 128. |
||||
| 160 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3470S @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3470S |
$ 140.1 | ||||
| 161 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4430 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4430 |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 162 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 5 1400
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 1400 |
$ 134.0 | ||||
| 163 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3450S @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3450S |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 164 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 3 1200
>> compare FX-8350 vs Ryzen 3 1200 |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 165 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-2450P @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2450P |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 166 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2500S @ 2.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2500S |
$ 75.0 | ||||
| 167 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-3340 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3340 |
$ 262.0 | ||||
| 168 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4430S @ 2.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-4430S |
$ 160.0 | ||||
| 169 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-990X @ 3.47GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-990X |
$ 350.0 | ||||
| 170 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2400 |
$ 84. |
||||
| 171 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-3340S @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3340S |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 172 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3350P @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3350P |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 173 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2320 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2320 |
$ 195.3 | ||||
| 174 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-2380P @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2380P |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 175 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3330 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3330 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 176 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3330S @ 2. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-3330S |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 177 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-980X @ 3.33GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-980X |
$ 220.0 | ||||
| 178 | 2013 | AMD FX-9590 Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-9590 |
$ 122.0 | ||||
| 179 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2310 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2310 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 180 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2400S @ 2.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2400S |
$ 65.7 | ||||
| 181 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2405S @ 2.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2405S |
$ 164. |
||||
| 182 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-980 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-980 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 183 | 2013 | AMD FX-9370 Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-9370 |
$ 178.9 | ||||
| 184 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-680 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-680 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 185 | 2014 | AMD FX-8370 Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-8370 |
$ 135.0 | ||||
| 186 | 2014 | AMD FX-8370E Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-8370E |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 187 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2300 @ 2. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-2300 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 188 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-970 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-970 |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 189 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-975 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-975 |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 190 | 2012 | AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-8350 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 191 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4370 @ 3.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4370 |
$ 450.0 | ||||
| 192 | 2015 | Intel Core i3-6320 @ 3.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-6320 |
$ 160. |
||||
| 193 | 2013 | AMD Athlon X4 760K Quad Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon X4 760K |
$ 46.0 | ||||
| 194 | 2012 | AMD FX-8320 Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-8320 |
$ 79.5 | ||||
| 195 | 2015 | Intel Core i3-6300 @ 3.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-6300 |
$ 143.0 | ||||
| 196 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-655K @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-655K |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 197 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-670 @ 3.47GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-670 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 198 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-880 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i7-880 |
$ 583.0 | ||||
| 199 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-960 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-960 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 200 | 2008 | Intel Core i7-965 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-965 |
$ 140.0 | ||||
| 201 | 2015 | Intel Core i3-4170 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4170 |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 202 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4360 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4360 |
$ 280.0 | ||||
| 203 | 2015 | Intel Core i3-6100 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-6100 |
$ 166. |
||||
| 204 | 2013 | AMD FX-8300 Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-8300 |
$ 80.6 | ||||
| 205 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4160 |
$ 140.0 | ||||
| 206 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-4340 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4340 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 207 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4350 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4350 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 208 | 2016 | Intel Core i3-6098P @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-6098P |
$ 133.7 | ||||
| 209 | 2009 | Intel Core i5-660 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-660 |
$ 49.0 | ||||
| 210 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-870 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-870 |
$ 310.0 | ||||
| 211 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-950 @ 3.07GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-950 |
$ 245.0 | ||||
| 212 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme X9770 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs X9770 |
$ 1,609.0 | ||||
| 213 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Extreme X9775 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs X9775 |
$ 1,806.0 | ||||
| 214 | 2014 | AMD FX-8320E Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-8320E |
$ 98. |
||||
| 215 | 2011 | AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-8150 |
$ 383.5 | ||||
| 216 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X6 1100T |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 217 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4150 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4150 |
$ 260.0 | ||||
| 218 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-4330 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4330 |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 219 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-650 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-650 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 220 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-661 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i5-661 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 221 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-860S @ 2.53GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-860S |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 222 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-875K @ 2.93GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-875K |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 223 | 2008 | Intel Core i7-940 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-940 |
$ 70.7 | ||||
| 224 | 2012 | AMD Athlon X4 740 Quad Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon X4 740 |
$ 277.0 | ||||
| 225 | 2011 | AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-8120 |
$ 100. |
||||
| 226 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1090T
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X6 1090T |
$ 396.1 | ||||
| 227 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-760 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-760 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 228 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-860 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-860 |
$ 290.0 | ||||
| 229 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-930 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-930 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 230 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E8600 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 231 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme X9650 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs X9650 |
$ 909.0 | ||||
| 232 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-4130 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-4130 |
$ 140.0 | ||||
| 233 | 2013 | AMD FX-6350 Six-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-6350 |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 234 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1075T
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X6 1075T |
$ 260.0 | ||||
| 235 | 2008 | Intel Core i7-920 @ 2.67GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i7-920 |
$ 174.0 | ||||
| 236 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E8500 |
$ 40. |
||||
| 237 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 965
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 965 |
$ 59.5 | ||||
| 238 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X6 1055T |
$ 185.0 | ||||
| 239 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-3250 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-3250 |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 240 | 2009 | Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.67GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5-750 |
$ 160.5 | ||||
| 241 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme Q6850 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q6850 |
$ 1,496.0 | ||||
| 242 | 2012 | AMD FX-6300 Six-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-6300 |
$ 59. |
||||
| 243 | 2012 | Intel Core i3-3240 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-3240 |
$ 46.0 | ||||
| 244 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-3245 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-3245 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 245 | 2018 | Intel Pentium Gold G5600 @ 3.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium Gold G5600 |
$ 100.9 | ||||
| 246 | 2011 | AMD Athlon II X3 460
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X3 460 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 247 | 2012 | AMD FX-6200 Six-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-6200 |
$ 340.0 | ||||
| 248 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 955
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 955 |
$ 130. |
||||
| 249 | 2011 | AMD Phenom II X4 960T
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 960T |
$ 135.0 | ||||
| 250 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X4 B97
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 B97 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 251 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1045T
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X6 1045T |
$ 175.0 | ||||
| 252 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2130 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-2130 |
$ 70.0 | ||||
| 253 | 2012 | Intel Core i3-3220 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-3220 |
$ 34.9 | ||||
| 254 | 2012 | Intel Core i3-3225 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i3-3225 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 255 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Duo E7500 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E7500 |
$ 15.0 | ||||
| 256 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Duo E7600 @ 3.06GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E7600 |
$ 120.0 | ||||
| 257 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E8400 |
$ 9.8 | ||||
| 258 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme Q6800 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q6800 |
$ 1,125.0 | ||||
| 259 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q9650 |
$ 69. |
||||
| 260 | 2018 | Intel Pentium Gold G5400 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium Gold G5400 |
$ 123.9 | ||||
| 261 | 2018 | Intel Pentium Gold G5500 @ 3.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium Gold G5500 |
$ 100.3 | ||||
| 262 | 2011 | AMD Athlon II X2 270
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 270 |
$ 24.0 | ||||
| 263 | 2012 | AMD Athlon II X2 B28
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 B28 |
$ 49.1 | ||||
| 264 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X3 455
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X3 455 |
$ 116.9 | ||||
| 265 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X4 645
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X4 645 |
$ 50. |
||||
| 266 | 2011 | AMD Phenom II X4 840
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 840 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 267 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1035T
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X6 1035T |
$ 189.0 | ||||
| 268 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-3210 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-3210 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 269 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8300 @ 2.83GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E8300 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 270 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q9550 |
$ 49.0 | ||||
| 271 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 265
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 265 |
$ 82. |
||||
| 272 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X3 450
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X3 450 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 273 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X4 640
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X4 640 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 274 | 2011 | AMD Phenom II X2 565
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X2 565 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 275 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 940
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 940 |
$ 120.0 | ||||
| 276 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 945
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 945 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 277 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X4 B95
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 B95 |
$ 73. |
||||
| 278 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2120 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-2120 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 279 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2125 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-2125 |
$ 199.0 | ||||
| 280 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6850 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E6850 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 281 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E7300 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E7300 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 282 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E7400 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E7400 |
$ 29.0 | ||||
| 283 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8200 @ 2. >> compare FX-8350 vs E8200 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 284 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs X6800 |
$ 263.6 | ||||
| 285 | 2010 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 @ 2.83GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q9500 |
$ 35.0 | ||||
| 286 | 2017 | Intel Pentium G4620 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G4620 |
$ 105.9 | ||||
| 287 | 2016 | Intel Core i3-2102 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-2102 |
$ 58.0 | ||||
| 288 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 @ 2.83GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q9505 |
$ 190. |
||||
| 289 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3258 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3258 |
$ 178.3 | ||||
| 290 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G3470 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3470 |
$ 104.3 | ||||
| 291 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G4520 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G4520 |
$ 110.9 | ||||
| 292 | 2017 | Intel Pentium G4600 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G4600 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 293 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 260
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 260 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 294 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X3 435
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X3 435 |
$ 50. |
||||
| 295 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X3 440
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X3 440 |
$ 47.0 | ||||
| 296 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X3 445
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X3 445 |
$ 91.0 | ||||
| 297 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X4 630
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X4 630 |
$ 43.0 | ||||
| 298 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X4 635
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X4 635 |
$ 70.0 | ||||
| 299 | 2012 | AMD Athlon II X4 641 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X4 641 |
$ 91.5 | ||||
| 300 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X2 550
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X2 550 |
$ 50. |
||||
| 301 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X2 555
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X2 555 |
$ 142.1 | ||||
| 302 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 820
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 820 |
$ 75.0 | ||||
| 303 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 920
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 920 |
$ 67.0 | ||||
| 304 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 925
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 925 |
$ 160.0 | ||||
| 305 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-2100 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 306 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2105 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs i3-2105 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 307 | 2012 | Intel Core i5 750S @ 2.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i5 750S |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 308 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3450 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3450 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 309 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3460 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3460 |
$ 288.2 | ||||
| 310 | 2017 | Intel Pentium G4560 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G4560 |
$ 103.1 | ||||
| 311 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X2 250
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 250 |
$ 39. |
||||
| 312 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 255
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 255 |
$ 65.2 | ||||
| 313 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 B24
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 B24 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 314 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X4 620
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X4 620 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 315 | 2011 | AMD Athlon II X4 631 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X4 631 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 316 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X2 545
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X2 545 |
$ 44.0 | ||||
| 317 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X2 B55
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X2 B55 |
$ 48. |
||||
| 318 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X3 720
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X3 720 |
$ 70.0 | ||||
| 319 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X3 B73
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X3 B73 |
$ 75.0 | ||||
| 320 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 810
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 810 |
$ 116.0 | ||||
| 321 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 910
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 910 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 322 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X4 910e
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 910e |
$ 157.0 | ||||
| 323 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6750 @ 2. >> compare FX-8350 vs E6750 |
$ 13.0 | ||||
| 324 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E7200 @ 2.53GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E7200 |
$ 75.0 | ||||
| 325 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q9450 |
$ 335.0 | ||||
| 326 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G4500 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G4500 |
$ 85.3 | ||||
| 327 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 6400+ |
$ 260.0 | ||||
| 328 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 7850 Dual-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 7850 |
$ 209. |
||||
| 329 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X2 245
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 245 |
$ 35.0 | ||||
| 330 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 B22
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 B22 |
$ 36.0 | ||||
| 331 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X3 425
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X3 425 |
$ 104.2 | ||||
| 332 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9950 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9950 |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 333 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X3 710
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X3 710 |
$ 84.5 | ||||
| 334 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 805
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 805 |
$ 174. |
||||
| 335 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 905e
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X4 905e |
$ 212.4 | ||||
| 336 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E4700 @ 2.60GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E4700 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 337 | 2010 | Intel Core2 Duo E6700 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E6700 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 338 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q8400 |
$ 99.5 | ||||
| 339 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q9400 |
$ 34.0 | ||||
| 340 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G3260 @ 3. >> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3260 |
$ 105.0 | ||||
| 341 | 2016 | AMD Athlon X4 845
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon X4 845 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 342 | 2013 | AMD FX-4350 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-4350 |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 343 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q6700 |
$ 45.0 | ||||
| 344 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 @ 2.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q8300 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 345 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.50GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q9300 |
$ 50. |
||||
| 346 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3250 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3250 |
$ 110.0 | ||||
| 347 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G3420 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3420 |
$ 110.0 | ||||
| 348 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G3430 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3430 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 349 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3440 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3440 |
$ 159.9 | ||||
| 350 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G4400 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G4400 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 351 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 7750 Dual-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 7750 |
$ 148. |
||||
| 352 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X2 215
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 215 |
$ 12.0 | ||||
| 353 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 220
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 220 |
$ 32.2 | ||||
| 354 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X2 240
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon II X2 240 |
$ 35.0 | ||||
| 355 | 2017 | AMD Athlon X4 950
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon X4 950 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 356 | 2012 | AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-4300 |
$ 53.4 | ||||
| 357 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9750 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9750 |
$ 60. |
||||
| 358 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9850 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 359 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E6600 |
$ 15.0 | ||||
| 360 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G2140 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G2140 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 361 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5800+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5800+ |
$ 25.0 | ||||
| 362 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 6000+ |
$ 46.0 | ||||
| 363 | 2016 | AMD Athlon X4 880K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon X4 880K |
$ 90. |
||||
| 364 | 2013 | AMD FX-4200 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-4200 |
$ 228.2 | ||||
| 365 | 2010 | AMD Phenom 9450e Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9450e |
$ 105.0 | ||||
| 366 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9550 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9550 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 367 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 9600B Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9600B |
$ 147.2 | ||||
| 368 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9650 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9650 |
$ 55.0 | ||||
| 369 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X3 705e
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom II X3 705e |
$ 152. |
||||
| 370 | 2010 | Intel Core i3-560 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-560 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 371 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E4600 @ 2.40GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E4600 |
$ 158.0 | ||||
| 372 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E6550 |
$ 15.0 | ||||
| 373 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3240 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3240 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 374 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5200+ |
$ 53.1 | ||||
| 375 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5400+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5400+ |
$ 53. |
||||
| 376 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5600+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5600+ |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 377 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 7550 Dual-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 7550 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 378 | 2012 | AMD FX-4170 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-4170 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 379 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 8600 Triple-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 8600 |
$ 53.0 | ||||
| 380 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 8600B Triple-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 8600B |
$ 53.0 | ||||
| 381 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 8650 Triple-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 8650 |
$ 50. |
||||
| 382 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9500 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 383 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9600 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 384 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E6400 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 385 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6420 @ 2.13GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E6420 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 386 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E4500 @ 2.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E4500 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 387 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2. >> compare FX-8350 vs Q6600 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 388 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Q8200 |
$ 23.0 | ||||
| 389 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G2130 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G2130 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 390 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G3220 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G3220 |
$ 120.0 | ||||
| 391 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5200+ |
$ 53.1 | ||||
| 392 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5400+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5400+ |
$ 53. |
||||
| 393 | 2014 | AMD Athlon X4 860K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon X4 860K |
$ 64.0 | ||||
| 394 | 2016 | AMD Athlon X4 870K
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon X4 870K |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 395 | 2011 | AMD FX-4100 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-4100 |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 396 | 2012 | AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs FX-4130 |
$ 76.0 | ||||
| 397 | 2010 | Intel Core i3-550 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-550 |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 398 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5000+ |
$ 331. |
||||
| 399 | 2009 | AMD Athlon Dual Core 5000B
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon Dual 5000B |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 400 | 2015 | AMD Athlon X4 840
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon X4 840 |
$ 78.7 | ||||
| 401 | 2011 | AMD E2-3200 APU
>> compare FX-8350 vs E2-3200 APU |
$ 8.0 | ||||
| 402 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 8450 Triple-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 8450 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 403 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 9350e Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9350e |
$ 3,382.1 | ||||
| 404 | 2009 | AMD Phenom X3 8550
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom X3 8550 |
$ 170. |
||||
| 405 | 2010 | Intel Core i3-540 @ 3.07GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-540 |
$ 21.0 | ||||
| 406 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G2030 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G2030 |
$ 41.0 | ||||
| 407 | 2012 | Intel Pentium G2120 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G2120 |
$ 46.0 | ||||
| 408 | 2012 | Intel Pentium G870 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G870 |
$ 97.0 | ||||
| 409 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5000+ |
$ 331.5 | ||||
| 410 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 5000 |
$ 100. |
||||
| 411 | 2010 | AMD Athlon 5200 Dual-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 5200 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 412 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4600+ |
$ 360.0 | ||||
| 413 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4800+ |
$ 460.0 | ||||
| 414 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 9150e Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9150e |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 415 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E4400 @ 2.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E4400 |
$ 9.0 | ||||
| 416 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6320 @ 1. >> compare FX-8350 vs E6320 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 417 | 2011 | Intel Pentium G860 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G860 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 418 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 5000 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 419 | 2010 | AMD Athlon 5200 Dual-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 5200 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 420 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4600+ |
$ 360.0 | ||||
| 421 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4800+ |
$ 460. |
||||
| 422 | 2010 | Intel Core i3-530 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs i3-530 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 423 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G2020 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G2020 |
$ 32.9 | ||||
| 424 | 2011 | Intel Pentium G850 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G850 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 425 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4200+ |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 426 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4400+ |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 427 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 8250e Triple-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 8250e |
$ 47. |
||||
| 428 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 9100e Quad-Core
>> compare FX-8350 vs Phenom 9100e |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 429 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Duo E4300 @ 1.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E4300 |
$ 158.0 | ||||
| 430 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs E6300 |
$ 13.0 | ||||
| 431 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G2010 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G2010 |
$ 34.9 | ||||
| 432 | 2012 | Intel Pentium G645 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G645 |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 433 | 2011 | Intel Pentium G840 @ 2. >> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G840 |
$ 35.0 | ||||
| 434 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4200+ |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 435 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+
>> compare FX-8350 vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4400+ |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 436 | 2012 | Intel Pentium G640 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare FX-8350 vs Pentium G640 |
$ 25.0 |
AMD FX-4350 vs AMD FX-8350: What is the difference?
Smartphone-graphic wire headphones
39 BALLLA
AMD FX-4350
35 BALLLA
AMD FX-8350
Winner when compared to
VS
64 facts in comparison
AMD FX-4350 9000 9000 AMD
Why is AMD FX-4350 better than AMD FX-8350?
- 1MB/core more L3 cache per core?
2MB/core vs 1MB/core - 1 Newer version of Turbo Core?
3 vs 2
Why is AMD FX-8350 better than AMD FX-4350?
- 1.
9x higher CPU speed?
8 x 4GHz vs 4 x 4.2GHz - 4 more CPU threads?
8 vs 4 - 4MB more L2 cache?
8MB vs 4MB - 192KB more L1 cache?
384KB vs 192KB
What are the most popular comparisons?
AMD FX-4350
VS
AMD RYZEN 3 3250U
AMD FX-8350
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
AMD FX-4350
VS
Intel Core I5-3570 9000 AMD AMD -8350
vs
Intel Core i7-4770K
AMD FX-4350
vs
AMD FX-4300
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD FX-6300
AMD FX-4350
VS
AMD A8-5600K
AMD FX-8350
VS
Intel Core i7-3770
AMD FX-4350
VS
AMD Ryzen 3 3200g
AMD FX-8350
AMD RYZEN 5 5500U
AMD FX-4350
VS
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
AMD FX-8350
VS
AMD FX-8370
AMD FX-4350
VS
VS
VS 9000 VS 9000.
AMD FX-8350
VS
Intel Core i7-4770
AMD FX-4350
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
AMD FX-8350
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 5600g
AMD FX-4350 2 AMD FX-4000 2 AM AMD FX-6300
AMD FX-8350
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
AMD FX-8350
VS
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
Complexation
Reviews of Users
-4350
0 Reviews of Users
AMD FX-4350
0.0.0.0.0.0.0 /10
0 Reviews of users
AMD FX-8350
5 reviews of users
AMD FX-8350
9.8 /10
5,0002 5 Reviews of users
Functions
The price ratio
reviews is not
9.6 /10
5 Votes
performance
Reviews not yet
9
5 votes
Energy efficiency
No reviews yet
8.6 /10
5 votes
CPU speed
20003
4 x 4.2GHz
8 x 4GHz
CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second a processor can perform, given all its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.
2nd processor thread
More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.
3.speed turbo clock
4.3GHz
4.2GHz
When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
4. Unlocked
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, allowing for better performance in games and other applications.
5.L2 cache
More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
6.L3 cache
More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
7.L1 cache
More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
8.core L2
1MB/core
1MB/core
More data can be stored in L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
9.core L3
2MB/core
1MB/core
More data can be stored in L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
Memory
1.RAM speed
1866MHz
1866MHz
Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.
2.max memory bandwidth
21GB/s
21GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3rd DDR memory version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
DDR (Double Data Rate Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory) is the most common type of main memory. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.
4.Memory channels
More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.
5.max memory
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Maximum amount of memory (RAM).
6.baud rate bus
5.4GT/s
5.4GT/s
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports memory troubleshooting code
✖AMD FX-4350
✖AMD FX-8350
Memory error recovery code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
A newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.
9.bus frequency
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device
Geotagging
1. PassMark result
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
This test measures processor performance using multithreading.
2nd PassMark result (single)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures multi-core processor performance. (Source: Primate Labs,2022)
4.Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the single-core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7. Blender test result (bmw27)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
The Blender benchmark (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
8.Blender result (classroom)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
9.power per watt
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
This means that the processor is more efficient, giving more performance per watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multi-threading
✖AMD FX-4350
✖AMD FX-8350
processor into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.
2. Has AES
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3. Has AVX
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.
4.Version SSE
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5. Has F16C
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.
6.bits transmitted at the same time
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.
7. Has MMX
✔AMD FX-4350
✔AMD FX-8350
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.
8. TrustZone enabled
✖AMD FX-4350
✖AMD FX-8350
Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and digital rights management (DRM) video streaming .
9.interface width
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-4350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means the processor performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which CPUs are better?
This page is currently only available in English.
Compare AMD FX-4350 vs AMD FX-8350 » BNAME.RU
Comparison of instructions and technologies
| Technology or instruction name | AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Turbo Core | AMD Auto Overclocking Technology . |
| Technology or instruction name | AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PowerNow! | PowerNow! idle frequency reduction technology. |
| Technology or instruction name | AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 | Brief description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMX (Multimedia Extensions) | Multimedia extensions. | ||
| SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) | Streaming SIMD processor extension. | ||
| SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) | Processor Streaming SIMD Extension 2. | ||
| SSE3 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 3) | Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 3. | ||
| SSSE3 (Supplemental Streaming SIMD Extension 3) | Additional SIMD extensions for streaming 3. |
||
| SSE4 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 4) | Processor Streaming SIMD Extension 4. | ||
| AES (Intel Advanced Encryption Standard New Instructions) | Command system extension. | ||
| AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions) | Command system extension. | ||
| F16C (16-bit Floating-Point conversion) | 16-bit floating point conversion. | ||
| FMA3 (Fused Multiply-Add 3) | Multiply Add with Round One (FMA3). | ||
| SSE4A (Streaming SIMD Extensions 4A) | — | Processor 4A streaming SIMD extension. | |
| BMI1 (Bit manipulation instructions 1) | BMI1 bit control command set. |
||
| AMD64 | 64-bit microprocessor architecture developed by AMD. | ||
| FMA4 (Fused Multiply-Add 4) | Multiply Add with Round One (FMA4). | ||
| XOP (eXtended Operations) | Advanced operations. | ||
| FMA (Fused Multiply-Add) | Fused multiplication-addition. |
| Technology or instruction name | AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EVP (Enhanced Virus Protection) | Improved virus protection. |
| Technology or instruction name | AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 | Brief description |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMD-V | AMD-V Virtualization Technology. |
| Technology or instruction name | AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| TBM (Trailing Bit Manipulation) | End Bit Manipulation. |
Other data
| Technology or parameter name | AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 |
|---|---|---|
| Voltage P0 Vcore | Min: 1.275 V — Max: 1.4 V | Min: 1.2 V — Max: 1.4 V |
Benchmarks
Overall performance rating
The overall rating is calculated according to the formula, taking into account all the data, such as — test results in benchmarks, number of cores, threads, base frequency, instructions, structure, socket, temperature data, technologies, year of manufacture, and much more. The results of the overall rating showed that the FX-8350 surpasses its rival FX-4350 in most parameters. The FX-4350 barely scores 39 compared to its competitor32.84 points.
PassMark CPU Mark
Almost all CPUs presented on our site have been tested in PassMark. The benchmark has a large set of tests for evaluating the performance of personal computers, in particular the CPU. Among them are compression, extended instruction checking, encryption, game physics calculations, floating point calculations, integer calculations, single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. In particular, you can compare the received data with other configurations in a common database. This is perhaps the most famous benchmark tester on the Internet. Performance Test showed a clear advantage of the FX-8350 processor (5936 points) over the FX-4350 (3271 points). The FX-4350, with a score of 3271, clearly loses in this test.
Cinebench 10 (32 bit) Single-threaded test
Single version — in its test uses only one core and one thread for rendering. It is possible to test multi-processor systems. Released by MAXON, it is based on the Cinema 4D 3D editor. The test is carried out on Windows and Mac operating systems. The basic mode of passing tests for speed is multi-level reflections, photorealistic rendering of a 3D scene, working with light, simulating global illumination, spatial light sources, and procedural shaders. The ray tracing method is used. This benchmark for processors and video cards is now very outdated.
Cinebench 10 (32bit) Multi-thread test
Multi-Core version is another test method in Cinebench R10 that uses multi-thread and multi-core test method. It is important to consider that the possible number of threads in this version of the program is limited to sixteen.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test
64-bit version of CINEBENCH R11.5 benchmark, — can test the processor for all 100, including all threads and cores. Unlike previous versions of the program, 64 threads are already supported here. Testing the FX-8350 in the Cinebench R11.5 benchmark gave 6.9points, this indicates a higher performance of this model. While the FX-4350 scores 3.73, it is way behind its rival in this test.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
An excellent multifunctional Cinebench 11.5 from the Maxon team. In this case, Single-Core tests occur using one core and one thread. In testing, the ray tracing method is also used, rendering a highly detailed 3D space with a large number of crystalline and translucent and glass balls. His tests are still relevant. The result of the check is the «frames per second» parameter. The single-thread test results for the FX-8350 in Cinebench 11.5 Single-Core showed high performance compared to the competitor, with a score of 1.1 points. But the FX-4350 itself, scoring 0.77 points in this test, is far behind it.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Multi-thread test
Multi-Thread version of Cinebench 15 — will test your system to the full, showing everything it can. The benchmark is ideal for new multi-thread processors from AMD and Intel, because can use 256 computing threads. All threads and CPU cores are used when rendering highly detailed 3D models. The FX-8350, with a score of 636, unconditionally scores more in the Multi-Core test from Cinebench 15. While its competitor FX-4350 is far behind with a score of 337 in the test.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
Cinebench R15 is the most modern tester from the Finns from Maxon today. In this version of the Single Core program, only 1 thread is involved in the rendering. Thanks to its use, the entire system is checked: both video cards and processors. For processors, the result of the analysis will be the value of PTS points, and for video cards, the number of frames per second. FPS. A complex 3D scene is being rendered with a large number of light sources, detailed objects and reflections. The single-threaded test of the FX-4350 processor in the Cinebench R15 program showed a result of 104. 47 points, slightly ahead of the competitor. Having received 97 points in this test, the FX-8350 is not far behind.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test
Geekbench 4 64-bit multi-threaded benchmark. It is the wide multi-platform support for various operating systems and devices that makes Geekbench tests the most valuable now. That’s already In Geekbench 4, the 64-bit multi-core processor FX-8350 received 11885 points, which is significantly higher than the FX-4350. In this test, the FX-4350 receives an extremely low score of 6816 compared to the FX-8350.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Single-threaded test
The current single-threaded version of Geekbench 4 for testing laptops and desktop PCs. This benchmark, like its earlier versions, still runs on operating systems: Mac OS, Windows, Linux. For the first time in this version of the program, mobile devices running Android and iOS are also supported. The Single-Core test uses 1 processor thread. The FX-8350 scores the highest in Geekbench 4 single-threaded testing with a score of 2799 points, but not much ahead of the opponent. But the FX-4350 itself also showed a good score of 2726 points, slightly losing its place to the FX-8350 model.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Multi-thread test
The Multi-Thread version of Geekbench 3 can allow you to perform a strong stress test on your PC and demonstrate the stability of your system.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Single-threaded test
Single Core version of the test loads only one thread and one CPU core. Multi-platform Geekbench is often used to evaluate the system under Mac, but it works on both Windows and Linux. The main purpose is to check the efficiency of the CPU.
Geekbench 2
On our site you can find about 200 CPU models that have test data in this benchmark. An almost completely outdated version of the Geekbench 2 program. Today there are newer options, 4v and fifth.
X264 HD 4.
0 Pass 1
This is a practical test of processor performance by transcoding HD video files to H.264 or the so-called MPEG 4 x264 codec. This test is faster than Pass 2 because it encodes at a constant speed. Number of frames processed per second. is the test result. An ideal benchmark for multi-core and multi-threaded CPUs. The MPEG 4 video processing speed of the FX-8350 is significantly higher at 139FPS But the FX-4350 did a poor job, its speed was 89.86 FPS.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 2
This is a slightly different, slower test based on video file compression. The result obtained is also measured in frames per second. The same MPEG4 x264 codec is used, but rendering occurs at a variable rate. You need to understand that a very real task is being simulated, and the x264 codec is used in many encoders. The result is a better quality video file. For this reason, the test results really reflect the effectiveness of the platform. When measuring the speed of video file compression by the FX-8350 processor in mpeg4 format, the result was 44 Frames / s. Its competitor FX-4350 showed a much lower video encoding rate compared to it — 21.21 FPS.
3DMark06 CPU
Benchmark for CPU and video system testing. CPUs are tested in two ways: the game AI performs pathfinding, and the second test emulates the game’s physics engine using PhysX. Created based on DirectX 9.0 by the Finnish company Futuremark. This test is very often used by overclockers and fans to overclock the system and gamers. The FX-8350 performed significantly faster in the pathfinding and game physics tests, with a score of 6648. The FX-4350 processor coped worse with this task, receiving 4651.14 points.
3DMark Fire Strike Physics
We can say that almost two hundred CPUs on our website have data in the 3DMark Physics test. It presents a math test that performs game physics calculations. In 3DMark’s Fire Strike Physics test, the FX-8350 confidently wins with a score of 7380. The FX-4350 fared much worse, scoring only 4620 points.
WinRAR 4.
0
Everyone knows the archiver. The tests were run under Windows. The compression speed was estimated by the RAR algorithm, for these purposes large volumes of randomly generated files were used. The resulting speed in the process of compression «kilobyte per second» — this is the result of testing. FX-8350 has a clear advantage in WinRAR data compression and packing speed, the result of file processing was 4562 Kb/s. The FX-4350 was far behind it, the speed of which did not exceed 2083.02 Kb / s.
TrueCrypt AES
Not exactly a benchmark, but the results of its work will help evaluate the performance of the entire computer. The program includes the function of encrypting disk partitions on the fly. It can fully function in various operating systems Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. It so happened that support for this program was stopped on May 28, 2014. Our site demonstrates the results of encryption speed in gigabytes per second when using the AES algorithm.
Compare AMD FX-4350 and AMD FX-8350
Comparative analysis of AMD FX-4350 and AMD FX-8350 processors according to all known characteristics in the categories: General Information, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Peripherals, Technologies, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation ( Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s).
AMD FX-4350
versus
AMD FX-8350
Benefits
Reasons to choose AMD FX-4350
- Newer processor, release date difference 5 month(s)
- Approximately 2% faster clock speed
- About 0% more max core temperature: 61.
10°C vs 61°C
- PassMark — Single thread mark about 2% more performance: 1605 vs 1578
- Geekbench 4 — Single Core performance about 1% better: 572 vs 566
| Release date | April 2013 vs 23 October 2012 |
| Maximum frequency | 4.3 GHz vs 4.2 GHz |
| Maximum core temperature | 61.10°C vs 61°C |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 1605 vs 1578 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 572 vs 566 |
Reasons to choose AMD FX-8350
- 4 more cores, run more applications simultaneously: 8 vs 4
- 4 more threads: 8 vs 4
- L1 cache is 2x larger, so more data can be stored in it for quick access
- L2 cache is 2x larger, which means more data can be stored in it save for quick reference
- Approximately 84% improvement in PassMark — CPU mark benchmark: 5996 vs 3267
- Approximately 73% improvement in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core performance: 2751 vs 1589
- CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop performance — Face Detection (mPixels/s) about 81% more: 9.886 vs 5.452
- CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) performance about 87% better: 21.912 vs 11.727
- CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) performance by 2x (a) more: 0.424 vs 0.208
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 2 times (a) more: 7.137 vs 3.54
| Number of cores | 8 vs 4 |
| Number of threads | 8 vs 4 |
| Level 1 cache | 384 KB vs 192 KB |
| Level 2 cache | 8MB vs 4MB |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 5996 vs 3267 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 2751 vs 1589 |
| CompuBench 1. |
9.886 vs 5.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 21.912 vs 11.727 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.424 vs 0.208 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.137 vs 3.54 |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: AMD FX-4350
CPU 2: AMD FX-8350
| PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|||||
| PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|||||
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|||||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
|||||
| CompuBench 1. |
|
|||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|||||
| CompuBench 1. |
|
| Name | AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 1605 | 1578 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 3267 | 5996 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 572 | 566 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 1589 | 2751 |
| CompuBench 1. |
5.452 | 9.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 11.727 | 21.912 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.208 | 0.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 3.54 | 7.137 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 3132 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.199 |
Feature comparison
| AMD FX-4350 | AMD FX-8350 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Vishera | Vishera |
| Family | AMD FX-Series Processors | AMD FX-Series Processors |
| Production date | April 2013 | October 23, 2012 |
| OPN PIB | FD4350FRHKBOX | FD8350FRHKBOX |
| OPN Tray | FD4350FRW4KHK | FD8350FRW8KHK |
| Place in the rating | 1979 | 1723 |
| Price now | $129. |
$79.99 |
| Series | AMD FX 4-Core Black Edition Processors | AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors |
| Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 12.09 | 32.95 |
| Applicability | Desktop | Desktop |
| Support 64 bit | ||
| Base frequency | 4.2 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Crystal area | 315 mm | 315 mm |
| Level 1 cache | 192KB | 384KB |
| Level 2 cache | 4MB | 8MB |
| Level 3 cache | 8MB | 8MB |
| Process | 32nm SOI | 32nm SOI |
| Maximum core temperature | 61. |
61°C |
| Maximum frequency | 4.3 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Number of cores | 4 | 8 |
| Number of threads | 4 | 8 |
| Voltage P0 Vcore | Min: 1.275 V — Max: 1.4 V | Min: 1.2V — Max: 1.4V |
| Number of transistors | 1200 million | 1200 Million |
| Unlocked | ||
| Supported memory frequency | 1866MHz | 1866MHz |
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum number of processors in | 1 | 1 |
| Supported sockets | AM3+ | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 125 Watt |
| PCI Express revision | n/a | n/a |
| Fused Multiply-Add (FMA) | ||
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) |
AMD FX-4350 vs.
AMD Phenom II X4 960T
AMD FX-4350
AMD FX-4350 runs with 4 and 4 CPU threads It runs at 4.30 GHz base 4.30 GHz all cores while TDP is set to 125 W .CPU connects to CPU socket AM3+ This version includes 8.00 MB of L3 cache on a single chip, supports 2 to support DDR3-1866 RAM, and supports PCIe Gen . Tjunction is kept below — degrees C. In particular, the Vishera (Bulldozer) Architecture is advanced beyond 32 nm and supports AMD-V . The product was launched Q2/2013
AMD Phenom II X4 960T
AMD Phenom II X4 960T runs with 4 and 4 CPU threads It runs at 3.40 GHz base 3.40 GHz all cores while TDP is set to 95 W .CPU connects to CPU socket AM3 This version includes 6.00 MB of L3 cache on a single chip, supports 2 to support DDR2-1066, DDR3-1333 RAM and supports PCIe Gen . Tjunction is kept below — degrees C. In particular, the Deneb (K10) architecture is advanced beyond 45 nm and supports AMD-V. The product was launched Q3/2011
AMD FX-4350
AMD Phenom II X4 960T
Compare details
| Frequency | 3. |
|
| 4 | Cores | 4 |
| 4.30 GHz | Turbo (1 core) | 3.40 GHz |
| 4.30 GHz | Turbo (all cores) | 3.40 GHz |
| No. | Hyper Threading | No. |
| Yes | Overclocking | Yes |
| normal | Basic architecture | normal |
| no iGPU | GPU | no iGPU |
| no turbo | GPU (Turbo) | No turbo |
| 32nm | Technology | 45nm |
| no turbo | GPU (Turbo) | No turbo |
| DirectX Version | ||
| Max. displays | ||
| DDR3-1866 | memory size | DDR2-1066 DDR3-1333 |
| 2 | Memory channels | 2 |
| Maximum memory | ||
| Yes | ECC | No. |
| — | L2 Cache | — |
| 8.00MB | L3 Cache | 6.00 MB |
| PCIe version | ||
| PCIe lanes | ||
| 32nm | Technology | 45nm |
| AM3+ | Connector | AM3 |
| 125 W | TDP | 95W |
| AMD-V | Virtualization | AMD-V |
| Q2/2013 | Release date | Q3/2011 |
|
Show more details |
Show more details |
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform benchmark. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform test. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the processors listed below have been tested with CPU-Comparison. However, most of the processors were not tested and the results were evaluated by the secret patented CPU-Comparison formula. As such, they do not accurately reflect the actual values of Passmark CPU ratings and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Energy usage estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU usage (0-100%)
Cost of electricity, USD/kWh
Energy usage estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU usage (0-100%)
Cost of electricity, USD/kWh
| AMD FX-4350 | AMD Phenom II X4 960T | |
| 125 W | Max TDP | 95W |
| NA | Power consumption per day (kWh) | NA |
| NA | Operating cost per day | NA |
| NA | Power consumption per year (kWh) | NA |
| NA | Cost per year | NA |
Simple household tasks |
||
| Minimum | Average | Maximum |
| 66 | Memory: 84 | 93 |
|
Memory 88.8 |
||
| 47 | 1 core: 71 | 83 |
|
1 core 34. |
||
| 86 | 2 cores: 132 | 155 |
|
2 cores 32.8 |
||
Demanding games and tasks |
||
| Minimum | Average | Maximum |
| 137 | 4 cores: 224 | 267 |
|
4 cores 28.2 |
||
| 148 | 8 cores: 227 | 266 |
|
8 cores 14. |
Extreme |
||
| Minimum | Average | Maximum |
| 152 | All Cores: 229 | 558 |
|---|---|---|
|
All cores 4.2 |
Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.
We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.
Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.
When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.
Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.
Benchmarks
Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.
Geekbench 3 Multi Core
Intel Core i7-4600M
6970
Intel Core i3-6100T
6928
Intel Core i7-6600U
6923
AMD Phenom II X4 980
6919
Intel Core i3-4350
6902
AMD FX-4350
6820
Intel Core i3-4330
6767
AMD Phenom II X4 975
6704
AMD ATHELON ATHETHLON ATHETHLON 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 AM70
6545
Intel Core i7-5600u
6485
Cinebench R11.5
AMD FX-83703
1.14 9000 AMD FX-8150
1. 14
AMD FX-8310
1.14
AMD FX-4350
1.13
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Intel Core I5-4250U
9000 2.12 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 x4980
1.12
AMD FX-8350
1.11
Intel Core i3-6100u
1.11
Cinebench R11.5
Intel Core I3-8130U 9000u 9000.3000 3.79
INTEL Core INTEL COREE
Intel Pentium Silver J5005
3.67
Intel Core i5-7200U
3.66
Intel Xeon E5450
3.64
AMD FX-4350
9000 3.64
9000 INTEL Core INTEL CORE INTEL INTEL CORE INTEL CORE INTEL CORE0004 Intel Core i7-6567U
3. 62
AMD Phenom II X4 945
3.58
Intel Core i7-6600u
9000. 3.55
AMD Phenom II X4 9000 9000 9000
Tests in the games
Dates in the games. popular games on AMD FX-4350 and system requirements. Please note that the official requirements of developers in games do not always match the data of real tests. Also, the result is strongly influenced by the overclocking of the system and the graphic settings in the game. We test at high settings in FullHD resolution to get numbers close to real gameplay. 900, SSD — 850 Evo 250GB.
Characteristics
The data is not yet filled in, therefore the tables may lack information or existing functions may be omitted.
Main
| Manufacturer | AMD |
| Release dateMonth and year of the processor’s availability. | 09-2015 |
| Cores The number of physical cores. |
4 |
| ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. | 4 |
| Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technologies, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores by the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. | Missing |
| Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. | 4.2 GHz |
| Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. |
No |
Video core
RAM
PCI
Data protection
Design
Competitors
Please note that competitors are selected automatically based on performance in a particular task. Therefore, some may puzzle you. We are improving our selection algorithm, treat with understanding.
Compare
AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Xeon E5-2630 0
AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i5-6300HQ
AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i7-2670QM
AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 0
AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i7-4750HQ
AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i3-4150
AMD FX-4350 AMD A4-3400
Cpu Benchmark with tests
| AMD FX-4350 | AMD A4-3400 | |
| 4. |
Frequency | 2.70 GHz |
| 4.30 GHz | Turbo (1 core) | No turbo |
| 4.30 GHz | Turbo (all cores) | No turbo |
| 4 | Cores | 2 |
| No | Hyperthreading ? | No |
| yes | Overclocking? | yes |
| normal | Basic architecture | normal |
| no iGPU | GPU | AMD Radeon HD 6410D |
| DirectX Version | 11 | |
| Max. displays | 2 | |
| DDR3-1866 | memory size | DDR3-1600 |
| 2 | Memory channels | 2 |
| Max. memory size | ||
| yes | ECC | No |
| — | L2 Cache | — |
| 8. |
L3 Cache | |
| PCIe version | ||
| PCIe lanes | ||
| 32nm | Technology | 32nm |
| AM3+ | Socket | FM1 |
| 125 W | TDP | 65W |
| AMD-V | Virtualization | AMD-V |
| Q2/2013 | Issue date | Q3/2011 |
| show more details | show more details |
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform benchmark. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform test. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
Theoretical processing performance of the processor’s internal graphics unit with simple precision (32 bits) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS specifies how many billions of floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.