AMDFD8350FRHKBOX
AMDFD8320FRHKBOX

8 Cores, 8 Threads
@4.0GHz Piledriver (2012)

8 Cores, 8 Threads
@3.5GHz Piledriver (2012)

Real World Speed
Performance profile from 105,211 user samples
73,554 User Benchmarks
Best Bench: 64% Base clock 5.05 GHz, turbo 5 GHz (avg)
Worst Bench: 47% Base clock 4 GHz, turbo 1.35 GHz (avg)
Poor: 47% Great: 64%
SPEED RANK: 202nd / 970
Gaming
Gaming 57%
Gunboat
Desktop
Desktop 56%
Gunboat
Workstation
Workstation 45%
Yacht
31,657 User Benchmarks
Best Bench: 62% Base clock 4.75 GHz, turbo 4.7 GHz (avg)
Worst Bench: 43% Base clock 3.5 GHz, turbo 1.35 GHz (avg)
Poor: 43% Great: 62%
SPEED RANK: 239th / 970
Gaming
Gaming 52%
Yacht
Desktop
Desktop 52%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 41%
Speed boat
Effective Speed
Effective CPU Speed
56.7 % Slightly faster effective speed.
+9%
51.8 % -9%
SC Mixed
Avg. Single Core Mixed Speed
75.9 Pts Slightly faster single-core speed.
+8%
70.6 Pts -8%
QC Mixed
Avg. Quad Core Mixed Speed
278 Pts Slightly faster quad-core speed.
+10%
252 Pts -10%
MC Mixed
Avg. Multi Core Mixed Speed
481 Pts Slightly faster multi-core speed.
+10%
437 Pts -10%
SC Mixed
OC Single Core Mixed Speed
85.6 Pts +4% 82.2 Pts -4%
QC Mixed
OC Quad Core Mixed Speed
321 Pts +5% 307 Pts -5%
MC Mixed
OC Multi Core Mixed Speed
559 Pts +4% 537 Pts -4%
Market Share
Based on 5,086,773 CPUs tested.
Market Share
Market Share (trailing 30 days)
2.02 % Hugely higher market share.
+169%
0.75 % -169%
Value
Value For Money
79.2 % +4% 76.2 % -4%
User Rating
UBM User Rating
70 % +4% 67 % -4%
Price
Price (score)
$119 -13% $104 Slightly cheaper.
+13%
Age
Newest
59 Months 0% 59 Months 0%
TDP
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
125 Watts 0% 125 Watts 0%
Cores
CPU Processing Cores
8 cores 0% 8 cores 0%
Threads
CPU Processing Threads
8 threads 0% 8 threads 0%
Lithography
Manufacturing process
32 nm 0% 32 nm 0%
Base Clock
Base Clock Speed
4 GHz Slightly faster base frequency.
+14%
3.5 GHz -14%
Turbo Clock
Turbo Clock Speed
4.2 GHz +5% 4 GHz -5%
SC Int
Single Core Integer Speed
92.2 Pts +4% 88.4 Pts -4%
SC Float
Single Core Floating Point Speed
79.1 Pts +4% 76.3 Pts -4%
QC Int
Quad Core Integer Speed
341 Pts +5% 325 Pts -5%
QC Float
Quad Core Floating Point Speed
293 Pts +4% 283 Pts -4%
MC Int
Multi Core Integer Speed
564 Pts +3% 546 Pts -3%
MC Float
Multi Core Floating Point Speed
487 Pts +4% 468 Pts -4%
Series
CPU Architecture
Piledriver (2012) Piledriver (2012)
Socket
Motherboard Socket
AM3+ AM3+
Graphics
Integrated Graphics
None None
ADVERTISEMENT

In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K delivers better performance. [May '13 CPUPro]

MORE DETAILS

The AMD FX-8320 has the same architecture and specs as the FX-8350, the only difference being the base/turbo clocks of 3.5/4.0 GHz for the 8320 vs 4.0/4.2 GHz for the 8350. Comparing the two models shows that the 8320 lags the 8350 at stock speeds by around 10% but broadly matches it when both processors are overclocked. This combined with the 8320's considerably lower price tag makes the 8320 the better value proposition. In terms of outright performance, as with all AMD CPUs, the FX series have very strong multi-core performance but lag Intel considerably in terms of single and dual-core throughput. [Mar '14 CPUPro]

MORE DETAILS

Processor Rankings (Price vs Performance) September 2017 CPU Rankings.

Welcome to our desktop CPU comparison. We calculate effective speed which measures real world performance for typical consumers. Effective speed is adjusted by price to yield a value for money rating which is geared towards gamers. Calculated values don't always paint the whole picture so we check them against hundreds of individual user ratings. The customizable table below combines these factors and more to bring you the definitive list of top CPUs. [CPUPro]

How Fast Is Your CPU? (Bench your build) Size up your PC in less than a minute.

Welcome to our freeware PC speed test tool. UserBenchmark will test your PC and compare the results to other users with the same components. You can quickly size up your PC, identify hardware problems and explore the best upgrades.

UserBenchmark of the month

How it works

  • - Download and run UserBenchMark (UBM).
  • - CPU tests include: integer, floating and string.
  • - GPU tests include: six 3D game simulations.
  • - Drive tests include: read, write and mixed IO.
  • - Checks include: 4k Align, NCQ, TRIM, SATA, USB & S.M.A.R.T.
  • - RAM tests include: single/multi core bandwidth and latency.
  • - Reports are generated and presented on userbenchmark.com.
  • - Identify the strongest components in your PC.
  • - See speed test results from other users.
  • - Compare your components to the highest voted in class.
  • - Find the best upgrades.
  • - Share your opinion by voting.

 Frequently Asked Questions

 Best User Rated

The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i7-7700K $313Nvidia GTX 1070 $400Samsung 850 Evo 250GB $88
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 $270AMD RX 480 $350Samsung 850 Pro 256GB $119
Intel Core i5-7600K $230Nvidia GTX 1060-6GB $265Samsung 850 Evo 500GB $150
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $45G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $724SanDisk Extreme 64GB $33
Seagate Barracuda 3TB (2016) $77Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $152SanDisk Extreme 32GB $22
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 1TB $57HyperX Fury DDR4 2133 C14 2x8GB $144SanDisk Extreme 16GB $20
Today's hottest deals
User Guide  •  About  •  FAQs  •  @Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer Feedback