Ryzen Threadripper 2920X vs FX-8350

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.88
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
2018
12 cores / 24 threads, 180 Watt
16.63
+329%

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms FX-8350 by a whopping 329% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8350 and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1469410
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.819.96
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD FX-Series (Desktop)AMD Ryzen Threadripper
Power efficiency2.838.42
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)ZEN+ (2018−2019)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)3 October 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X has 1130% better value for money than FX-8350.

Detailed specifications

FX-8350 and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 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)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads824
Base clock speed4 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data35
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data32 MB
Chip lithography32 nm12 nm
Die size315 mm2213 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 million19,200 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 Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM3+SP3r2
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt180 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X. 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++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Quad-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data2 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data93.867 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X.

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
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 16.63
+329%

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 Threadripper 2920X 25444
+329%

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
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 1278
+162%

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 1987
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 7364
+271%

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 Threadripper 2920X 5407
+68.9%

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 Threadripper 2920X 46015
+172%

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 Threadripper 2920X 10948
+64.7%

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 Threadripper 2920X 3.03
+175%

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 Threadripper 2920X 18
+155%

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 Threadripper 2920X 2628
+313%

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 Threadripper 2920X 178
+83.5%

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 Threadripper 2920X 1.96
+78.2%

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 Threadripper 2920X 16.2
+350%

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 Threadripper 2920X 131
+201%

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 Threadripper 2920X 209
+50.3%

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 Threadripper 2920X 4669
+2.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.88 16.63
Recency 23 October 2012 3 October 2018
Physical cores 8 12
Threads 8 24
Chip lithography 32 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 180 Watt

FX-8350 has 44% lower power consumption.

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, on the other hand, has a 328.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8350 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, 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 Threadripper 2920X
Ryzen Threadripper 2920X

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 3659 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 71 vote

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 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 Threadripper 2920X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.