Ryzen 9 3900X vs FX-8350

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads
3.84

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by a whopping 450% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 3900X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking1366230
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.9437.04
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD FX-Series (Desktop)AMD Ryzen 9
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
Release date23 October 2012 (11 years ago)7 July 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$499
Current price$200 $381 (0.8x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 9 3900X has 3840% better value for money than FX-8350.

Detailed specifications

FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 3900X 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads824
Base clock speed4 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz4.6 GHz
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data64 MB
Chip lithography32 nm7 nm
Die size315 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature61 °C95 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million19,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierYesYes
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 3900X 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM3+AM4
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 3900X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, CLMUL, CVT16, EVP, FMA4, XOP, Turbo Core, HT3.1no data
AES-NI++
FMA+no data
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 3900X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 3900X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data128 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data51.196 GB/s
ECC memory supportno data-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 3900X.

PCIe versionn/ano 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 3.84
Ryzen 9 3900X 21.11
+450%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 450% 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 5936
Ryzen 9 3900X 32656
+450%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 450% 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 489
Ryzen 9 3900X 1693
+246%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 246% 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 1993
Ryzen 9 3900X 9923
+398%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 398% 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 3201
Ryzen 9 3900X 6019
+88%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 88% 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 16904
Ryzen 9 3900X 45539
+169%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 169% 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 6648
Ryzen 9 3900X 14889
+124%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 124% in 3DMark06 CPU.

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%

FX-8350 8.34
Ryzen 9 3900X 2.69
+210%

FX-8350 outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 210% 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 7
Ryzen 9 3900X 34
+392%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 392% 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 636
Ryzen 9 3900X 3049
+379%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 379% 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 97
Ryzen 9 3900X 207
+113%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 113% 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 1.1
Ryzen 9 3900X 2.36
+115%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 115% 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 3.6
Ryzen 9 3900X 10.8
+199%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 199% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8350 4562
Ryzen 9 3900X 7534
+65.1%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 65% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8350 139
Ryzen 9 3900X 268
+92.8%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 93% in x264 encoding pass 1.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

FX-8350 44
Ryzen 9 3900X 147
+238%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms FX-8350 by 238% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.84 21.11
Recency 23 October 2012 7 July 2019
Physical cores 8 12
Threads 8 24
Chip lithography 32 nm 7 nm

The Ryzen 9 3900X is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8350 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 and Ryzen 9 3900X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD FX-8350
FX-8350
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Ryzen 9 3900X

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 3376 votes

Rate FX-8350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5008 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 3900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-8350 or Ryzen 9 3900X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.