Key Differences
In short — FX-6350 outperforms Phenom II X4 925 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing FX-6350 is 1449 days newer than Phenom II X4 925.
Advantages of AMD Phenom II X4 925
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than AMD FX-6350 - 95 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-6350 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-6350
- Performs up to 2% better in DOOM Eternal than Phenom II X4 925 - 452 vs 445 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Phenom II X4 925 - 6 vs 4 threads
DOOM Eternal
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Nightmare
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Nightmare
Phenom II X4 925
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
FX-6350
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Phenom II X4 925
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
Single-Core
320
65.57377049180327%
Multi-Core
930
59.768637532133674%
AMD Phenom II X4 925 | vs | AMD FX-6350 |
|---|---|---|
| May 11th, 2009 | Release Date | Apr 29th, 2013 |
| Phenom II X4 | Collection | FX |
| Deneb | Codename | Vishera |
| AMD Socket AM3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 6 |
| 4 | Threads | 6 |
| 2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 125 W |
| 45 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
| 14.0x | Multiplier | 19.5x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
