A9-9425 vs FX-8350

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.88
+117%

FX-8350 outperforms A9-9425 by a whopping 117% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8350 and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14712025
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.81no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD FX-Series (Desktop)AMD Bristol Ridge
Power efficiency2.8310.88
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)31 May 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8350 and A9-9425 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed4 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cacheno data128K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB1 MB (per core)
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8350 and A9-9425 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 configuration11
SocketAM3+FT4
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and A9-9425. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, CLMUL, CVT16, EVP, FMA4, XOP, Turbo Core, HT3.1MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and A9-9425 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and A9-9425.

PCIe versionn/ano 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.

FX-8350 3.88
+117%
A9-9425 1.79

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.

FX-8350 5936
+292%
A9-9425 1513

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

FX-8350 488
+52.5%
A9-9425 320

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

FX-8350 1988
+312%
A9-9425 482

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

FX-8350 3201
+19.2%
A9-9425 2686

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

FX-8350 16904
+290%
A9-9425 4338

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

FX-8350 6648
+187%
A9-9425 2314

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

FX-8350 8.34
+210%
A9-9425 25.83

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

FX-8350 7
+359%
A9-9425 2

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

FX-8350 636
+409%
A9-9425 125

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

FX-8350 97
+27.6%
A9-9425 76

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

FX-8350 1.1
+22.2%
A9-9425 0.9

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

FX-8350 3.6
+279%
A9-9425 1

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

FX-8350 44
+348%
A9-9425 10

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

FX-8350 139
+175%
A9-9425 51

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

FX-8350 4562
+412%
A9-9425 891

Geekbench 2

FX-8350 11198
+148%
A9-9425 4518

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.88 1.79
Recency 23 October 2012 31 May 2016
Physical cores 8 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 15 Watt

FX-8350 has a 116.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

A9-9425, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.

The FX-8350 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9425 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8350 is a desktop processor while A9-9425 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and A9-9425, 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 FX-8350
FX-8350
AMD A9-9425
A9-9425

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.


4.2 3667 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1522 votes

Rate A9-9425 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8350 or A9-9425, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.