FX-8350 vs Ryzen 5 1600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
7.94
+107%

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by a whopping 107% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-8350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking8821390
Place by popularity51100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation13.431.13
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5AMD FX-Series (Desktop)
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2019−2020)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release date16 March 2017 (7 years ago)23 October 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219no data
Current price$115 (0.5x MSRP)$162

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 5 1600 has 1088% better value for money than FX-8350.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-8350 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads128
Base clock speed3.2 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz4.2 GHz
Bus support4 × 8 GT/sno data
L1 cache576 KBno data
L2 cache3 MB8192 KB
L3 cache16 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography14 nm32 nm
Die size213 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data61 °C
Number of transistors4800 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierYesYes
P0 Vcore voltageno dataMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-8350 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-8350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, CLMUL, CVT16, EVP, FMA4, XOP, Turbo Core, HT3.1
AES-NI++
FMAno data+
AVX++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-8350 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-8350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-On certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-8350.

PCIe version3.0n/a
PCI Express lanes20no 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.

Ryzen 5 1600 7.94
+107%
FX-8350 3.84

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 107% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 12283
+107%
FX-8350 5936

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 107% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 1071
+119%
FX-8350 489

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 119% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 4586
+130%
FX-8350 1994

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 130% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 4538
+41.8%
FX-8350 3201

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 42% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 25970
+53.6%
FX-8350 16904

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 8244
+24%
FX-8350 6648

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 24% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 6.85
+21.8%
FX-8350 8.34

FX-8350 outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 22% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 13
+82.4%
FX-8350 7

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 82% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 1129
+77.5%
FX-8350 636

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 78% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 147
+51.5%
FX-8350 97

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 52% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 1.65
+50%
FX-8350 1.1

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 50% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 6.4
+77.8%
FX-8350 3.6

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 78% 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%

Ryzen 5 1600 3430
FX-8350 4562
+33%

FX-8350 outperforms Ryzen 5 1600 by 33% in WinRAR 4.0.

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%

Ryzen 5 1600 69
+57.9%
FX-8350 44

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 58% in x264 encoding pass 2.

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%

Ryzen 5 1600 177
+27.6%
FX-8350 139

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 28% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Geekbench 2

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Ryzen 5 1600 16217
+44.8%
FX-8350 11198

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms FX-8350 by 45% in Geekbench 2.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.94 3.84
Recency 16 March 2017 23 October 2012
Physical cores 6 8
Threads 12 8
Chip lithography 14 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 125 Watt

The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-8350 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and FX-8350, 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 Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 5 1600
AMD FX-8350
FX-8350

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.


4.1 5514 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 3434 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1600 or FX-8350, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.