Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900 outperforms the cheaper FX-8350 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8350 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-10900 is 2746 days newer than the cheaper FX-8350.
Advantages of AMD FX-8350
- Up to 57% cheaper than Core i9-10900 - CA$182.45 vs CA$419.88
- Up to 48% better value when playing Battlefield V than Core i9-10900 - CA$0.87 vs CA$1.68 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900
- Performs up to 20% better in Battlefield V than FX-8350 - 250 vs 209 FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD FX-8350 - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8350 - 20 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8350 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield V
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
209
83%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.87/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$182.45
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$182.45 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 76 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
250
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.68/FPS
51%
Price, CA$
CA$419.88
43%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$419.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8350 | vs | Intel Core i9-10900 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Core i9 |
Vishera | Codename | Comet Lake |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 20 |
4.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
20.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |