AMD FX 8350 

Released October, 2012
  • 4 GHz
  • Octa core
  • Unlocked

Benchmarks Real world tests of the AMD FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
Core i7 3770K
FX 8370

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
FX 8370

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s
Core i7 3770K
2,620,000 MB/s
FX 8370
2,450,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
Core i7 3770K
FX 8370

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
Core i7 3770K
FX 8370


FX 8350
Core i7 3770K
FX 8370

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350
FX 8370

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350
FX 8370

Reviews Word on the street for the AMD FX 8350




7.9 Out of 10

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Clock speed 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz
Cores Octa core
Socket type AM3+
Is unlocked Yes


Has a NX bit Yes
Has virtualization support Yes
Instruction set extensions
  1. MMX
  2. SSE4.2
  3. AVX 1.1
  4. Supplemental SSE3
  5. FMA4
  6. ABM
  7. AMD-V
  8. SSE4.1
  9. XOP
  10. TBM
  11. AVX
  12. AMD64
  13. SSE
  14. BMI1
  15. F16C
  16. FMA3
  17. AES
  18. SSE4a
  19. SSE3
  20. CVT16
  21. CLMUL
  22. SSE2
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes

integrated graphics

GPU None

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in
Memory type DDR3-1866
Channels Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s


Architecture x86-64
Threads 8 threads
L2 cache 8 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm
Transistor count 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1
Die size 319 mm²
Clock multiplier 21
Voltage range 0.81 - 1.45V
Operating temperature Unknown - 61°C


Overclock popularity 709
Overclock review score 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.69 GHz

power consumption

TDP 125W
Annual home energy cost 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 5.72 pt/W
Idle power consumption 92W
Peak power consumption 182.21W
Typical power consumption 159.66W


Clock speed 2,600 MHz
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.😉/დაგიბრუნდით/
Wondering about getting one.
What is retarded is that people think that TDP relates directly to power bill. TDP is heat output and how it relates to power consumption depends on efficiency.
Says the person that cannot even spell "Yourself", LOL Hilarious!!
I always have owned Intel for as long I can remember and have been happy with the performance until 2012 I found myself wanting to build a new rig! So I also always bought a dual core because the were the only Intel chip I could afford an have somewhat all around performance for gaming and surfing the kids never complained. So at work we use quads to develop cad programs to build some precision stuff! Making a long story short a buddy of mine came over and I asked him if he wanted to Canada Computers and help me build a home rig! He brought up the Idea of trying AMD and that I would save some bucks so I said lets check it out. We ended up with FX 8350, Gigabyte FX990 UD3 rev3 16gb Corsair Vengeance, Kingston Hyper FuryX 250gb SSD, Asus Xonar St soundcard, Gigabyte R9 290X last but not least EVGA 750 w Modular PSU! Bill came to a little over 1200.00 Now in 2012 that wasn't half bad considering both the GPU and sound card were over 600.00. I have to say my intel rig bill was 800.00 and change! So I new I was going to here it from the wife when I got home! Well the kids love it, the wife loves it. I can run my cad on it it is surprisingly quick to this son and I both love to game so I pulled r9 290x to a friend and picked up an HIS Roaring RX480. That CPU is still running new most demanding titles 65 Fps or better. If this Family computer last 1 more year it will be the longest lasting family PC ever! So I definitely be waiting for Ryzen and AM4 mini ITX. Do not get me wrong for the right price I would by Kaby Lake but I have to say not really much difference then Sky lake and for the me my experience overall with amd has been a good one and Fx 8350 has real good and reliable CPU for our family.
Best for price for its time :-)
It´s RETARDED how biased this site is.
No, actually in many game engines, physics calculations are in fact done on the GPU via shaders, this is especially true of shadows and particles. An example of this would be PhysX, but many game engines do this.
Cpu is for physics calculation, shadows, particles, etc in games
For what I use it for (SpaceEngine) My FX 8350 (Core @4.2ghz base, NB @2.31ghz and HT Bus speed @2.73ghz) outshines most Intel processors by a long shot.
Kill yourlsef, plz
It's actually the world record according to this: This is liquid nitrogen, however, and the description says water. Highly doubtful that this is possible on water.
Funny if you look at the 5930K the annual bill is $30 a year with a 140W TDP. Then you go to this and the annual usage is $56 a year with a 125W
this is greater
Witcher 3 runs amazing on a FX 8350.I just want to see all games run as well as Witcher 3.
lol, that's exactly what I have, it works great, I can run the witcher 3 on ultra at 45 fps even with nvidia hairworks aa at 8
Liquid Nitrogen is one HELL of a coolant
Because at the time that didn't exist :D
why 290x why not get a 980ti at that price or amd Fury?
My only question is who the heck got the OC (water) over 8ghz?????
explain why low end procc will affect fps. then you will find your statement is not true. i mean not 100% true. maybe 90%...
Actually no, gaming graphics are about GPU, CPU is everything else in the game. Including loading and unloading data. I have tested this, with same gpu different cpu on game performance.
Some of the enthusiast crowd keeps going "Intel" this and "Intel" that. Yes. they're faster. They're also more expensive for the performance you're getting per unit. On a budget? Want most of the "real" speed that Intel's offering, but can't justify the 100-400 dollars more? This is where you're going to find it. Gaming's more about the GPU in many cases than the CPU. Other things may/may not be better on Intel, but in the end, even most of those have went the way of GPU boost and you have to ask yourself if you need (not want...everyone wants... I want the top-end Xeon speeds- but I'm not shelling out $6k per processor for it unless I won the powerball or megamillions...) that muscle or not and whether your applications gain from CPU muscle or GPU muscle. If it's the latter, why spend another couple hundred on that 10-15% boost over this and either pocket the difference or plunk it down on a bruiser of a GPU which might gain you 25% or more on things? It should be noted that I've got both brands in my house and my desktop's an 2700k i7 and the server (and soon the kid's machine) is an AMD- because of the above mentioned thinking. I needed the extra boost for what I was doing at the time I built my desktop. If I'm building a new one, at the domains I can justify expenses, the decision's a push except for cost. AMD's going to be slightly cheaper.
I'm normally an Intel guy because single core performance is really important to me. But for multicore applications, this and the FX-6300 are absolutely ideal. I built a PC for a friend recently, and we have the FX-8350 overclocked to 4.5 GHz using the Corsair H80i with SP120 fans. He is running two ASUS R9 290x DCU II's in crossfire on the MSI 970 Gaming AM3+ motherboard. 16GB of 1600 MHz G.skill. Awesome machine for like 1500-1600 bucks. Haven't observed any throttling like the charlatans saying that the FX8350 throttles multi GPU set-ups. That may be the case for Nvidia GPU's, but these 290x's are blazing!
comments powered by Disqus