Xeon X5687 vs FX-8350

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.74
+12%
Xeon X5687
2011
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
3.34

FX-8350 outperforms Xeon X5687 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8350 and Xeon X5687 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14751567
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.763.39
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD FX-Series (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency2.832.43
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)14 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199$121

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon X5687 has 346% better value for money than FX-8350.

Detailed specifications

FX-8350 and Xeon X5687 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads88
Base clock speed4 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz3.86 GHz
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB256 KB (per core)
L3 cacheno data12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size315 mm2239 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °C80 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million1,170 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 Xeon X5687 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 configuration12
SocketAM3+FCLGA1366,LGA1366
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt130 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and Xeon X5687. 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, HT3.1Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data1.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data+
PAEno data40 Bit

Security technologies

FX-8350 and Xeon X5687 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and Xeon X5687 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and Xeon X5687. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data288 GB
Max memory channelsno data3
Maximum memory bandwidthno data32 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

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 Xeon X5687.

PCIe versionn/a2.0

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
+12%
Xeon X5687 3.34

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
+11.8%
Xeon X5687 5309

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.74 3.34
Recency 23 October 2012 14 February 2011
Physical cores 8 4
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 130 Watt

FX-8350 has a 12% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores, and 4% lower power consumption.

The FX-8350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X5687 in performance tests.

Note that FX-8350 is a desktop processor while Xeon X5687 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and Xeon X5687, 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
Intel Xeon X5687
Xeon X5687

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 3694 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 53 votes

Rate Xeon X5687 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8350 or Xeon X5687, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.