AMD FX 8350 

Released October, 2012
  • 4 GHz
  • Octa core
  • Unlocked
8.2 Out of 10

At idle, the difference between the FX-8350 and Core i5-3550 isn't that large; the Intel chip draws 58W while the AMD CPU draws 74W.
by PCMag (Nov, 2012)
Here, the Core i5-3550, AMD FX-8350, and FX-8150 essentially tied, at 86, 85, and 84 FPS respectively.
by PCMag (Nov, 2012)

CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of the AMD FX 8350


Benchmark performance using all cores

FX 8350
Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, PassMark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

FX 8350
Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

FX 8350
PassMark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more


Are you paying a premium for performance?

FX 8350
Performance Per Dollar


CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

FX 8350

Benchmarks Real world tests of the AMD FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
Core i7 4790K
FX 6300

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
FX 6300

Cinebench R11.5

FX 8350
FX 6300

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)

FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

FX 8350
FX 6300
Core i5 4460

PassMark (Single Core) Data courtesy PassMark

FX 8350

Reviews Word on the street for the AMD FX 8350

It's also faster than the Intel i5-3550 in Cinebench; with a score of 6.93 compared to the i5-3550's 5.95.

Value is core to this arrangement, and being able to put together a decent AMD CPU/mobo combo for less than a Core i5 setup means that you get a good chunk of cash to spend on your graphics card.


7.9 Out of 10

What People Are Saying Give it to me straight

Socket Type

If you're looking to upgrade from an older system you really can't beat the price to performance ratio offered with an eight core 4GHz processor processor for only $195!
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)
The new FX processors will be manufactured using Global Foundries' 32nm process and consists of ~1.2 billion transistors.
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)
It is a direct sequel to 2005's Battlefield 2, and the eleventh installment in the Battlefield franchise.
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)


Today we stuck to increasing the multiplier and left the Bclk alone, we were able to bring the FX-8350 to a rock solid 4.9GHz without breaking a sweat.
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)
I have heard it said on countless occasions that you get 80% of the performance for 60% of the price.
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)
That performance gap gets even bigger when you chuck the HD encoding benchmark of X264 v4.0 at the pair with the FX-8350 getting almost 25 per cent better results than the Intel i5.
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)


Benchmark Results: The second pass of the X264 HD Video Encoding benchmark is much more processor intensive than the first pass.
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)
Two of our game benchmarks don't benefit from the faster processors today.
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)
It's not quite the 1GHz+ speed boost you can get out of Intel's architecture, but it does give you some impressive performance gains.
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)


Single-threaded prowess still counts for a lot, not least in gaming.
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)
Your graphics card is most responsible for your gaming experience, so it makes sense to drop the most cash on that.
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)
With the AMD software though, it remained happily numbercrunching away.
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)


The new AMD 'Piledriver' modules are essentially revamped 'Bulldozer' cores.
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)
While this has allowed AMD to pack more cores into the same space, it's also impacted the performance of each particular core.
by PCMag (Nov, 2012)
Intel CPUs have fewer cores, but the performance of each individual core tends to be higher.
by PCMag (Nov, 2012)

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 0.82 - 1.45V


Overclock popularity 709
Overclock review score 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.71 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.71 GHz

power consumption

TDP 125W
Annual home energy cost 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 4.83 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 10 comments.
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!
the best processor overall(general) pair it with r9 290x 8gb ram and you are going to heaven
that's was great gamer for impressive!!!!
i love this prossesor
comments powered by Disqus