OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

AMD FX-8350 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£340PassMark multi-core score:6096N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:AM3+TDP (Thermal design power):125 W

AMD FX-8350 Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 39 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD FX-8350

6.8/10

▲Better than 50% of processors

7.4

▲Better than 51%

4.7

▼Worse than 67%

7.8

▲Better than 62%

8.8

▲Better than 50%

?

Not in any best-of list yet

2.8
Gaming
Gaming
2.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
2.1
PassMark single-core score
25.0%
1.4
Geekbench 6 single-core score
20.0%
5.5
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
1.8
L3 cache
8.0%
4.9
N. of physical cores
3.2
Video editing
Video editing
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
2.5
Geekbench 6 multi-core score
20.0%
4.9
N. of physical cores
20.0%
4.4
CPU threads
15.0%
1.8
L3 cache

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD FX-8350

6.8

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.8

Show more

Hide

Processor type

CPU socket

AM3+

Chipset

?

CPU architecture

Instruction sets

MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES, CLMUL, FMA4, XOP, AMD-V

Show more

What reviewers say

Performance

4.7

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

PassMark multi-core score

Show more

What reviewers say

Architecture

3.7

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

4.5

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

What reviewers say

Integrated graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

N/A

Integrated GPU execution units

N/A

Integrated GPU base frequency

N/A

Integrated media encoders/decoders

N/A

Show more

What reviewers say

Power & Thermal

6.1

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

N/A

Configurable TDP

?

Show more

What reviewers say

AMD FX-8350 vs the average processor

Why is AMD FX-8350 better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

4 more performance cores
This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
8 vs 4
Unlocked for overclocking
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
8x4.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
Includes a cooler
This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
39 °C lower CPU temperature
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (61 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
61 °C vs 100 °C
2.67x larger L2 cache
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
8 MB vs 3 MB
2x more L2 per core
This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
2 more CPU cores
This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
8 vs 6

16.4% higher review score
Reviews score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
80%
7.3
Average grade
20%
9.8
Popularity
Grades by review (39)
8 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 31 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
7.8 vs 6.7
29.2% higher sentiment score
9.3 vs 7.2
20.5% higher user score
User score
8.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 50% of models
80%
8.7
Rating
20%
9.2
Popularity
8.8 vs 7.3

4 more performance cores
This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
8 vs 4
Unlocked for overclocking
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
Higher base clock
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
8x4.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
2 more CPU cores
This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
8 vs 6

2.67x larger L2 cache
This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
8 MB vs 3 MB
2x more L2 per core
This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core

Supports ECC memory
This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.

Includes a cooler
This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
39 °C lower CPU temperature
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (61 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
61 °C vs 100 °C

Why is AMD FX-8350 worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

Less advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Vishera vs Kaby Lake).
Vishera vs Kaby Lake
65.1% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (535 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
535 vs 1,535
38.2% weaker single-core performance
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,580 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
1,580 vs 2,558
2.67x larger process node
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
32 nm vs 12 nm
52.4% lower multi-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,479 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
2,479 vs 5,209
46.8% lower PassMark score
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,096 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
6,096 vs 11,469
Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES, CLMUL, FMA4, XOP, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES, CLMUL, FMA4, XOP, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
45.9% less L3 per core
This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core

36% more expensive
AMD FX-8350 is more expensive than the average processor (£340 vs £250).
£340 vs £250

Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES, CLMUL, FMA4, XOP, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AES, CLMUL, FMA4, XOP, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
8 years older release date
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
2012 vs 2020
Older CPU socket
This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (AM3+ vs FP5).
AM3+ vs FP5
More limited crypto acceleration
This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
AES vs AES, SHA

65.1% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (535 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
535 vs 1,535
38.2% weaker single-core performance
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,580 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
1,580 vs 2,558
52.4% lower multi-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,479 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
2,479 vs 5,209
46.8% lower PassMark score
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,096 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
6,096 vs 11,469
No simultaneous multithreading
This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
4.5% lower boost clock
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
No speed boosting
This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
45% lower bus transfer rate
This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
4.4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
8 lower clock multiplier
This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
20 vs 28

Less advanced microarchitecture
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Vishera vs Kaby Lake).
Vishera vs Kaby Lake
2.67x larger process node
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (32 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
32 nm vs 12 nm
45.9% less L3 per core
This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
78% larger die size
This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (315 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
315 mm² vs 177 mm²
75.8% fewer transistors
This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
1.2 billion vs 4.95 billion
Less advanced foundry
This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
GlobalFoundries 32 nm vs Intel 14 nm

41.7% lower memory speed
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1866 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
1,866 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
Older DDR support
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
DDR3 vs DDR4
36.2% lower memory bandwidth
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
29.9 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
Older PCIe version
This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
2.0 vs 3.0
Lower JEDEC memory speed
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1866 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR3-1,866 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
50% less memory capacity
This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
32 GB vs 64 GB

No integrated graphics
This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.

2.78x higher base power
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
125 W vs 45 W
39 °C lower temperature limit
This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (61 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
61 °C vs 100 °C
2.78x higher TDP
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
125 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0

Repair Revive Repeat

≈ estimated

04/10/2026

Gaming tests · 1080p at low and medium settings

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is playable in many modern games at 1080p, but weaker in demanding titles and limited by missing AVX2.

6.0

RandomGaminginHD

≈ estimated

26/06/2026

Hands-on test · gaming performance in an old FX PC

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is playable in some games at 60 FPS, but the old CPU is the clear bottleneck.

5.0

Adrian's Tech Base

≈ estimated

16/05/2026

Hands-on test · games, synthetic benchmarks and emulation

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is viable for older and light games, but hard to recommend given overclocking, power, and platform costs.

5.0

Gettoe Coding

≈ estimated

18/10/2024

Retrospective review · CPU and gaming benchmarks

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is acceptable but not worth buying today, and its future-proofing is only just adequate.

4.0

zWORMz Gaming

≈ estimated

14/04/2024

Gaming test · 20 games and benchmarks in 2024

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is playable in some games, but stuttering and weak single-core speed make it a poor buy in 2024.

5.0

Nexus Tech

≈ estimated

15/10/2023

Hands-on review · benchmarks against Intel i7 chips

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 doesn't convincingly beat first-gen Intel i7 chips, though it's a welcome step up from Bulldozer.

6.0

Nerd on a Budget

≈ estimated

30/04/2023

Retro build · gaming and overclocking tests in 2023

Verdict

Still runs modern games in a fashion, but overclocking adds little and the chip shows its age.

8.0

TechLabUK

≈ estimated

09/11/2022

Hands-on review · game benchmarks and Ryzen comparison

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is not as bad as claimed and still playable at 60 FPS, but clearly behind newer Ryzen chips.

8.0

PhilsComputerLab

≈ estimated

22/05/2020

Hands-on gaming test · overclock and FPS results

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 still plays many games well for 2012 owners, but used prices make buying one hard.

5.0

Coalition Gaming

≈ estimated

04/01/2019

Benchmark test · FX-8350 gaming and CPU results in 2019

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is still capable when configured well, but it's time to upgrade rather than buy one.

7.0

F2F Tech

≈ estimated

27/12/2018

Hands-on review · two weeks as main gaming PC

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is surprisingly capable in modern games, but not worth buying new given cheaper alternatives.

8.0

Hoosier Hardware

≈ estimated

21/01/2017

Hands-on test · GTA 5 benchmarks at 1080p

Verdict

AMD FX-8350 is still a relevant gaming CPU at 1080p, but too dated for streaming or content creation.

More graded video reviews (12)

AA Computers and Technology

CyberCat Technologies

creator’s own scoreestimated by us

TechnoTux · 31/01/2024

Hands-on test · game performance on low settings

AMD FX-8350 is surprisingly playable in many games, though not recommended as a new purchase.

Likes

Playable frame rates in several modern games at low settings
Fortnite runs above 60 fps
Surprisingly good performance for an older processor

Dislikes

Building a new system around it is not worthwhile
The graphics card would need upgrading for more demanding games

Cabra SMM · 12/11/2023

Hands-on test · benchmarks, stress test and missing-pin check

AMD FX-8350 works despite a missing pin, passing all benchmarks and a 15-minute stress test.

Likes

Passed Cinebench R15, R20 and Performance Test without issues
Stable through a 15-minute AIDA64 stress test
Good temperatures after swapping in a tower cooler
Missing pin appears non-critical and the chip still works

Dislikes

Stock low-profile cooler overheated and shut the PC down
Older chip may struggle with current AAA games without overclocking
Needs a capable graphics card for modern games

EL CANAL DE PIPO · 24/11/2021

Hands-on review · Windows 11 use and light tasks

AMD FX-8350 suits everyday tasks and older games, but it is not suited to the latest titles, and its Windows 11 support is still unfinished.

Likes

Runs Windows 11 smoothly for everyday tasks
Good enough for older games and light work
Feels about as smooth as Windows 10

Dislikes

Not suited to the latest games
Windows 11 support still unfinished, with updates missing
Some system panels and settings are still incomplete

Joaquín Acosta | RevelarProds · 05/12/2020

Retro review · gaming tests in Full HD

AMD FX-8350 is dated and hot, but it still performs very well for Full HD gaming.

Likes

Good frame rates in GTA V at Full HD
Steady performance with no drops during explosions
Enough for Full HD gaming with 16 GB of RAM

Dislikes

Runs very hot and needs liquid cooling
Old 32 nm design with high power draw
Dated performance in newer, demanding games

EMOVJ · 05/04/2015

Build log · BIOS and compatibility issues

AMD FX-8350 is more than enough for the creator's gaming build, though the motherboard needed a BIOS update.

Likes

Enough performance for the creator's gaming build
Lower price than the comparable Intel i7 chip

Dislikes

Needs a compatible motherboard with a recent BIOS update
Random crashes and restarts until Cool and Quiet is disabled
Motherboard documentation must be checked for the socket power limit

Tech Bench · 11/04/2018

Gaming test · older FX chip in current titles

AMD FX-8350 still runs current games well, making it a very cheap option for budget builds.

Likes

Still runs current games
Eight cores handle multiple games and tasks at once

UNBOXME · 19/10/2015

Hands-on review · benchmarks, rendering and build tips

AMD FX-8350 is strong for video editing and multitasking, but it needs a good motherboard and cooler.

Likes

Strong video rendering performance in Premiere
Eight cores handle multitasking and heavy workloads
Comparable to an Intel Core i7-3770K in editing

Dislikes

High power consumption at 125 W
Requires a good motherboard to run well
Needs a capable cooler to stay in its best operating range

SR1 · 16/12/2016

Unboxing · first look and stock cooler impressions

AMD FX-8350 is a powerful processor, though the stock fan is tiny and loud, so a bigger cooler is advised.

Likes

Eight cores clocked at 4 GHz base
Turbo up to around 4.5 to 5 GHz
Metal heatsink feels well built

Dislikes

Stock fan is very small
Stock fan is loud at full speed
Runs hot, so stock cooling is not recommended for gaming

What reviewers agree on

Based on 8 · 34

Reviewers like its overclocking headroom and value, while gaming opinions split and many criticize high power use and weak single-core speed.

Praised

Mixed views

Criticised

Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0

tomshardware.com

≈ estimated

23/10/2012

AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?

Lab test · Piledriver review

Verdict

The AMD FX-8350 is an unlocked eight-core chip, up to 15% faster per core than Bulldozer, but its thermal ceiling is 125W.

8.0

techradar.com

✓ explicit

08/11/2012

AMD FX-8350 review

Lab test · Overclock and gaming

Verdict

The AMD FX-8350 is an eight-thread chip that beats the Core i5 3570K in multi-threaded work but trails Intel chips in gaming by 10 to 15%.

8.0

overclockers.com

≈ estimated

23/10/2012

AMD FX-8350 – Piledriver – CPU Review

Launch review · Overclocking test

Verdict

The AMD FX-8350 improves on Bulldozer and can rival an Intel i5 in games, but it draws far more power and tops out at a stable 4.9 GHz.

7.0

hothardware.com

✓ explicit

23/10/2012

AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8-Core CPU Review

Launch overview · Feature breakdown

Verdict

The AMD FX-8350 is the first desktop chip with a 4GHz base clock and works with existing AM3+ boards, but this article has no benchmark results.

10

guru3d.com

✓ explicit

23/10/2012

AMD FX 8350 processor review

Launch overview · Piledriver cores

Verdict

The AMD FX-8350 is an unlocked eight-core chip with a 4GHz base clock, but this section covers Piledriver's promised gains, not test results.

6.0

umtalelab.com

≈ estimated

30/12/2019

AMD FX-8350 Test with DDR3 2133 MHz: Processor Performance

Stock-speed test · Gaming and apps

Verdict

The AMD FX-8350 handles rendering and video encoding well at stock speeds, but its gaming results trail Xeon chips and it struggles in Destiny 2.

4.0

computerwoche.de

≈ estimated

23/10/2012

GHz- Prozessor mit Piledriver-Architektur: AMD FX-8350 Vishera

Lab test · Benchmarks and power

Verdict

The AMD FX-8350 is a clear step up from the FX-8150 for multi-core work, but its power draw and single-core speed still trail Intel's Core i5.

9.0

geeknetic.es

✓ explicit

23/10/2012

AMD Vishera. AMD FX-8350 [Análisis Completo en Español]

Hands-on test · Intel comparison

Verdict

The AMD FX-8350 is an eight-core chip that beats a Core i5 3570K in multi-threaded work, but draws more power than Intel's 22nm rivals.

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD FX-8350

Eight physical cores handle many heavy jobs at once.
The unlocked multiplier lets you change the clock speed.
A cooler is included in the box.
Two memory channels support up to 32 GB of memory.
The 8 MB L2 and 8 MB L3 caches help data stay close to the cores.

What we don't like about AMD FX-8350

A Geekbench 6 single-core score of 535 makes everyday programs feel slow.
The 32 nm process makes the chip large at 315 mm².
The 125 W power draw needs a good cooler and a solid power supply.
DDR3 memory at 1866 MHz limits bandwidth to 29.9 GB/s.
There is no integrated graphics and no multithreading.

Verdict

Eight physical cores are what stands out about the AMD FX-8350, and the chip is unlocked with a cooler in the box. The catch is the age of the design: it is built on a 32 nm process, and its single-core speed is slow. Everyday programs that cannot spread their work over many cores will feel it. Its single-core score of 535 in Geekbench 6 shows the gap clearly. The chip also draws 125 W, and it uses DDR3 memory at 1866 MHz, which gives 29.9 GB/s of bandwidth. There is no multithreading and no integrated graphics, so each core handles one thread and a graphics card is required. It suits a buyer who runs many heavy jobs at once and can live with an older platform.

Best alternatives

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 9900X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X

Processors

Intel Core i7-14700K

Processors

Intel Core i9-12900KS

Processors

Intel Core i7-14700

Processors

Intel Core i7-13700K

Processors

Intel Core i9-14900KF

Processors

Intel Core i7-13700

Processors

Intel Core i7-13700T

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare AMD FX-8350 with other processors

Graphic comparison of AMD FX-8350 and other processors

No results found