Core 2 Extreme QX6850 vs FX-8350
Aggregate performance score
FX-8350 outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by a whopping 159% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8350 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1391 | 2073 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.13 | 2.69 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD FX-Series (Desktop) | Core 2 Extreme (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Kentsfield (2007) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) | no data |
| Current price | $162 | $385 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 has 138% better value for money than FX-8350.
Detailed specifications
FX-8350 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 1333 MHz |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 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 Core 2 Extreme QX6850 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 | no data |
| Socket | AM3+ | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850. 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 | + | no data |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850.
| 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 Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 159% based on our aggregate 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 Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 159% in Passmark.
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 Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 3% 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 Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 54% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
FX-8350 outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 49% in 3DMark06 CPU.
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 Core 2 Extreme QX6850 by 103% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.84 | 1.48 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 130 Watt |
The FX-8350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and Core 2 Extreme QX6850, 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.
