Atom E665C vs FX-8350
Primary details
Comparing FX-8350 and Atom E665C processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1475 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.76 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD FX-Series (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.83 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Stellarton (2010) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 22 November 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
FX-8350 and Atom E665C 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 26 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 47 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8350 and Atom E665C 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+ | Intel BGA1466 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 4 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and Atom E665C. 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 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and Atom E665C are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and Atom E665C. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Intel GMA 600 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and Atom E665C.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 22 November 2010 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 1 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 4 Watt |
FX-8350 has an age advantage of 1 year, 700% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Atom E665C, on the other hand, has 3025% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between FX-8350 and Atom E665C. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that FX-8350 is a desktop processor while Atom E665C is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and Atom E665C, 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.
