Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.7 GHz Around 10% higher clock speed
Front view of AMD A10 7850K

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 7850K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 159.66W 3x lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 72.4 °C vs 61 °C Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
Newer manufacturing process 28 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 3.6x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.8x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Jan, 2014 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 1 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 8350 vs A10 7850K

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
A10 7850K

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
A10 7850K

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s
A10 7850K
2,370,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
A10 7850K

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
A10 7850K


FX 8350
A10 7850K

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350
A10 7850K

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350
A10 7850K

Reviews Word on the street

Specifications Full list of technical specs


FX 8350  vs
A10 7850K 
Clock speed 4 GHz 3.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Octa core Quad core
Socket type
Is unlocked Yes Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 34,133.32 MB/s


FX 8350  vs
A10 7850K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 4
L2 cache 8 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 61°C Unknown - 72.4°C

integrated graphics

Label N/A Radeon™ R7 Series
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0

power consumption

TDP 125W 65W
Annual home energy cost 56.1 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 159.62 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 5.72 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 159.66W 52.81W
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction
AMD A10 7850K
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 12 comments.
No! FX-8350 is a AM3+ Socket Processor and your Motherboard is a FM2+ Socket Motherboard and will support AMD A10-8750 APU maximum!
Would the FX-8350 work with my MSI A68HM-E33 V2 motherboard?
I'm late to the party, but as a PC tech that has monitored the industry religiously since he was a toddler, I think I can shed some insight. (Extremely late, 1 year in fact.. lol) You're absolutely right in the assertion that browser (casual) games have gotten an influx of users in maybe the past 5-10 years, thanks to Facebook. Not to mention the fact that these games tend to offer a synced mobile version/client that allows them to progress or carry over scores from their desktops or vise versa. Now—the biggest thing is, Flash can utilize hardware acceleration, which is GPU heavy. So, an AIO(all in one) solution is best suited to this particular market segment. People whom don't do research, don't understand and just want a cheap computer that can run these types of games. That's when it becomes useful to offer A4-A6. Say I go to Staples (Canada) and I want a desktop that can run Flash games, not die like PCs of yesteryear and not take 5-10 minutes to become "ready". (Trust me, I've helped a lot of older people with their computers, and they all just want to go to Pogo or play FB games, but they have to wait 10 minutes before their PC is ready to surf the web and then take forever to get to the page.) I also need to take into account that these people are low budget (pensions, even), so recommending an upgrade is hard. I could offer them to buy an IBM ThinkCentre for $115, but an Intel Core 2 Duo isn't that great, and the onboard GPU is Intel, which is terrible. So they aren't going to get far in today's games, but it won't be slow to a crawl. Problem is, the purpose of the upgrade needs to do three things, be faster, play the same games better and last as long, if not longer than 5 years (because that's how long their old one lasted.) The client isn't like you, or me, upgrading our PC every 2-4 years. Another problem lies in the fact that when a customer gets an upgrade, they get used to it being faster and then want to do more. They start playing more games, even downloading games from say Steam, Windows Store, or buy them retail. So then that Intel onboard media accelerator starts getting hit by things it either has a hard time going over 10FPS, or crapping out completely. I'd tell them to get something like the Acer Aspire TC ATC-115-ER42 ( A6-6310) or put together a parts list to build something similar to fit their needs. It'd be a simple quad core with HD 5000 series level GPU performance, which is enough to play FB games, MOBAs, puzzle games, and some older (5 year old) titles. The Think Centre, using a Core 2 Duo is half the CPU power and the Intel GMA 3000, which is only DX9 capable, not DX12—can't even run Crysis 2. lmao Scale up to a similar price ($280 CAD), and you're still only up to a quad Pentium N3700 with a DX11.2 capable onboard GPU @ half the GPU clock speed(Still under-powered for Crysis 2). Under any budget for an AIO type of solution for longevity and not having to buy extra parts, the APUs are great and they can also serve as a cheap HTPC. I would need at least $300 CAD to build a Athlon x2/Phenom II x3 with 2GB ram, 5000 series GPU, 1TB HDD. (Case, PSU, board, processor, ram, GPU). I can snag 3 things for $130, but then still need a PSU, case and GPU. The 5570 is $50. A PSU will be at least $25. A case that isn't an eye sore would be $30-$40, $70 for a 1TB HDD. Then you have shipping, or taxes if you can't find someone with the parts offline. Might as well buy the AIO solution and save yourself the headache.
i got the a10 7850k without my graphics card i was play battlefield 4,crysis 3 on high easy amd witha cheap graphics card i got that has the same gpu as my processor im pulling in on ultra and high with all the new games that is hitting the market it actual on of the best processor i ever own i like it alot better than my AMD FX 8350 with my r9 480 4g plus amd a10 7560k with my cheap graphics card when i sync them together with bios im surprise it gives me 4gb even tho my amd7850k is 1gb and my other is 2gb but it usually out performs my other one i would put r9 480 in it but my processor wont sync with it and i would lose out on the performance when i need it but gonna be building a new machine real soon anyways
Begin a computer scientist with some experience with parallel computing I am well aware of how adding more core affects performance; as I said -- roughly linear, not exactly linear and certainly not at a 1 to 1 ratio. The size of the socket shouldn't have anything to do with how many cores it will support; even if it does it makes no sense to develop and use an inferior socket when a better one is available. I often tinker with computer builds and I can confirm that it's usually more expensive to build an Intel based computer than an AMD based computer; this is not always the case though -- if you're looking at bang for buck, Intel does have some offering that will match AMD based computers. The bulk of gaming isn't even for the games you mention; they are pop-cap like, facebook and browser games (which is usually flash games -- the best technology for transforming you 3GHz i7 into a 16 MHz 386). Small and simple games which take no effort to get into. I maintain my criticism of the A series -- I see no point in having them around. The FX series are superior in every way and simply scaling them down to the level of the A series would give you the same benefits/disadvantages of the A series.
The reason the can't just stuff in 4 more cores is because the size of the FM2+ Socket type is enormous already. AMD would have to create a whole new Socket type and right now they can't afford that. Even though doubling ammount of cores might seem to double the proformance, it will not. Just like Crosfiring or using SLI does not double the graphics proformance. Even though AMD may not be doing too good right now, they do have reasons as to why they are doing things the way they are. APU is going to be the saving grace for AMD because after the flop of their FX9370 and FX9590 they realized that they really couldn't accomplish what they wanted with the Dedicated CPU AM3+ socket because Intel always came ahead on their i7K and i7x series. AMD finally found that what they were realy lacking was performance per watt and the size (32nm) of their architecture. AMD also realized that the "bulk" of gaming is not for Crysis 3, Battlefield 4 and Metro last light, which are all extremally demanding games. More people play MOBAs (League of Legends, Hero's of the Storm and Doata 2) and MMOs which have settings that can go very low to accomidate for lower proformance PCs. This is the market they are targeting and it may be the best decision they have done in awhile. Just try to make a running intel PC for $300 that will play League at ultra, because AMD is the only one at that price point for now.
pci 3.0 is faster than pci 2.0 but not that much with that said you can run your pci 3.0 on a am3+ mobo and it will work fine
i was wondering which would be better for animation and media art. the graphics card im trying to get is pci 3.0 and pci 3.0 is not on AM3+ mobos. would it be better to just go with the fx and put my graphics card into a 2.0 pci?
Well, allow me to rephrase then; I never got why the A series, which appears to be superior to the FX series in all ways, except raw performance and price, exists. It seems to me that the obvious step for AMD is to make an 8-core A10. This might increase power consumption but will also increase performance; roughly linearly. According to this site, the performance of an 8-core A10 at 4 GHz will outperform an 8-core FX at 4.2 GHz. AM3+ is dead and has been for some time -- the replacement is still missing and it doesn't look like FM2+ is going to replace anything.
The A4 and A6 are in low end laptops, the A8 and A10 are in Lower end gaming laptops. The FX series is designed for ultra high end laptops and desktops. The point of an A series is you don't need a separate graphics card and the power draw is significantly lower, resulting in better battery life.
I never got the point of the A series -- they seem like a low grade version of the FX series with no purpose at all.
I have an FX-8350, this CPU is amazing, never has worked slow my PC and my videogames
comments powered by Disqus