EPYC 9455 vs FX-8350
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9455 outperforms FX-8350 by a whopping 1777% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1771 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.87 | 9.36 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD FX-Series (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.14 | 8.95 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $5,412 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9455 has 976% better value for money than FX-8350.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
FX-8350 and EPYC 9455 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) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.15 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8192 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 192 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 6x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 49,890 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-8350 and EPYC 9455 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 |
| Socket | AM3+ | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 300 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and EPYC 9455. 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 9455 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and EPYC 9455. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and EPYC 9455.
| PCIe version | n/a | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.39 | 63.64 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 48 |
| Threads | 8 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 300 Watt |
FX-8350 has 140% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9455, on the other hand, has a 1777% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9455 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD FX-8350 in performance tests.
Note that FX-8350 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9455 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
