A8-7410 vs FX-6350

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-6350
2013
6 cores / 6 threads, 125 Watt
2.89
+67.1%
A8-7410
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 12 Watt
1.73

FX-6350 outperforms A8-7410 by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-6350 and A8-7410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking16702045
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.196.55
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Carrizo-L (2015)
Release date29 April 2013 (11 years ago)7 May 2015 (9 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-6350 and A8-7410 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads64
Base clock speed3.9 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz2.5 GHz
L2 cache6144 KB2048 KB
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature61 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million930 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.25 V - Max: 1.4125 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-6350 and A8-7410 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 configuration1no data
SocketAM3+FP4
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt12 - 25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6350 and A8-7410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT, AMD-V
AES-NI++
FMA+FMA4
AVX++
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6350 and A8-7410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6350 and A8-7410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3L-1866
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-6350 and A8-7410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-6350 and A8-7410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6350 and A8-7410.

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-6350 2.89
+67.1%
A8-7410 1.73

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-6350 4591
+67.5%
A8-7410 2741

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-6350 483
+100%
A8-7410 241

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-6350 1529
+144%
A8-7410 627

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.89 1.73
Recency 29 April 2013 7 May 2015
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 6 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 12 Watt

FX-6350 has a 67.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.

A8-7410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 941.7% lower power consumption.

The FX-6350 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-7410 in performance tests.

Note that FX-6350 is a desktop processor while A8-7410 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6350 and A8-7410, 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-6350
FX-6350
AMD A8-7410
A8-7410

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.


3.8 375 votes

Rate FX-6350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 703 votes

Rate A8-7410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-6350 or A8-7410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.