EPYC 7252 vs FX-8350
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7252 outperforms FX-8350 by a whopping 227% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-8350 and EPYC 7252 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1471 | 623 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.81 | 11.24 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD FX-Series (Desktop) | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 2.83 | 9.64 |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $475 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7252 has 1288% better value for money than FX-8350.
Detailed specifications
FX-8350 and EPYC 7252 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 4,800 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 EPYC 7252 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | AM3+ | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and EPYC 7252. 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 | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and EPYC 7252 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and EPYC 7252. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
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 EPYC 7252.
| 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.88 | 12.68 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 7 August 2019 |
| Threads | 8 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 120 Watt |
EPYC 7252 has a 226.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more threads, a 357.1% more advanced lithography process, and 4.2% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 7252 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8350 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8350 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7252 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and EPYC 7252, 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.
