Ryzen 9 7940HS vs FX-8350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.75
Ryzen 9 7940HS
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
19.20
+412%

Ryzen 9 7940HS outperforms FX-8350 by a whopping 412% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 7940HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1475301
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.76no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD FX-Series (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency2.8351.70
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 7940HS 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)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads816
Base clock speed4 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz5.2 GHz
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm4 nm
Die size315 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million25,000 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 Ryzen 9 7940HS 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+FP8
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 7940HS. 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, HT3.1Ryzen AI, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 7940HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 7940HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 7940HS.

PCIe versionn/a4.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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 3.75
Ryzen 9 7940HS 19.20
+412%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 30388
+412%

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 487
Ryzen 9 7940HS 2460
+405%

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 1983
Ryzen 9 7940HS 11560
+483%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 7837
+145%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 48751
+188%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 15689
+136%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 2.7
+209%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 30
+343%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 2661
+318%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 284
+192%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 3.38
+207%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 15.1
+319%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 144
+231%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 293
+111%

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
Ryzen 9 7940HS 7490
+64.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.75 19.20
Threads 8 16
Chip lithography 32 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 9 7940HS has a 412% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 9 7940HS is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8350 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8350 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 9 7940HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 7940HS, 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 Ryzen 9 7940HS
Ryzen 9 7940HS

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 3690 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 992 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 7940HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8350 or Ryzen 9 7940HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.