Athlon 64 3000+ vs FX-8350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.74
+1681%
Athlon 64 3000+
2001
1 core / 1 thread, 89 Watt
0.21

FX-8350 outperforms Athlon 64 3000+ by a whopping 1681% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8350 and Athlon 64 3000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14863214
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.88no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD FX-Series (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency2.820.22
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Clawhammer (2001−2005)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)January 2001 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199$65

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8350 and Athlon 64 3000+ 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)1 (Single-Core)
Threads81
Base clock speed4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz2 GHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache8192 KB512K
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm130 nm
Die size315 mm2193 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million154 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 Athlon 64 3000+ 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+754
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt89 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and Athlon 64 3000+. 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, HT3.1no data
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and Athlon 64 3000+ are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and Athlon 64 3000+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and Athlon 64 3000+.

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 3.74
+1681%
Athlon 64 3000+ 0.21

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
+1677%
Athlon 64 3000+ 334

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.74 0.21
Physical cores 8 1
Threads 8 1
Chip lithography 32 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 89 Watt

FX-8350 has a 1681% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon 64 3000+, on the other hand, has 40.4% lower power consumption.

The FX-8350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 64 3000+ in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and Athlon 64 3000+, 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 Athlon 64 3000+
Athlon 64 3000+

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 3725 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 116 votes

Rate Athlon 64 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8350 or Athlon 64 3000+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.