FX-8350 vs EPYC 9684X

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9684X
2023
96 cores / 192 threads, 400 Watt
76.02
+1933%
FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.74

EPYC 9684X outperforms FX-8350 by a whopping 1933% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9684X and FX-8350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking51485
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.88
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD FX-Series (Desktop)
Power efficiency17.892.82
Architecture codenameGenoa-X (2023)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date13 June 2023 (1 year ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$14,756$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 9684X and FX-8350 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9684X and FX-8350 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores968 (Octa-Core)
Threads1928
Base clock speed2.55 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz4.2 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)8192 KB
L3 cache1152 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography5 nm32 nm
Die size12x 72 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data61 °C
Number of transistors135,240 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-
Unlocked multiplier-+
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9684X and FX-8350 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration21
SocketSP5AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)400 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9684X and FX-8350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, CLMUL, CVT16, EVP, FMA4, XOP, Turbo Core, HT3.1
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9684X and FX-8350 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9684X and FX-8350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9684X and FX-8350.

PCIe version5.0n/a
PCI Express lanes128no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 9684X 76.02
+1933%
FX-8350 3.74

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

EPYC 9684X 120760
+1934%
FX-8350 5936

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 76.02 3.74
Recency 13 June 2023 23 October 2012
Physical cores 96 8
Threads 192 8
Chip lithography 5 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 400 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 9684X has a 1932.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

FX-8350, on the other hand, has 220% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 9684X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8350 in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 9684X is a server/workstation processor while FX-8350 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9684X and FX-8350, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 9684X
EPYC 9684X
AMD FX-8350
FX-8350

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 28 votes

Rate EPYC 9684X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 3724 votes

Rate FX-8350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 9684X or FX-8350, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.