A9-9420 vs FX-8350
Aggregate performance score
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by a whopping 296% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8350 and A9-9420 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1380 | 2387 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.94 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD FX-Series (Desktop) | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Current price | $200 | $440 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-8350 and A9-9420 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 124.5 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8350 and A9-9420 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | AM3+ | FT4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and A9-9420. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, CLMUL, CVT16, EVP, FMA4, XOP, Turbo Core, HT3.1 | Single-Channel DDR4-2133, Virtualization, |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and A9-9420 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and A9-9420. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Radeon R5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and A9-9420.
| PCIe version | n/a | no 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 outperforms A9-9420 by 296% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 297% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 50% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 298% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 11% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 249% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
A9-9420 outperforms FX-8350 by 155% in wPrime 32.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 320% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 375% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 20% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 11% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
FX-8350 outperforms A9-9420 by 227% in TrueCrypt AES.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.84 | 0.97 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 31 May 2016 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 15 Watt |
The FX-8350 is our recommended choice as it beats the A9-9420 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8350 is a desktop processor while A9-9420 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and A9-9420, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
