Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F 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 i9-10900F is 2746 days newer than the cheaper FX-8350.
Advantages of AMD FX-8350
- Up to 14% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $137.48 vs $159.4
- Up to 2% better value when playing Overwatch 2 than Core i9-10900F - $0.48 vs $0.49 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 13% better in Overwatch 2 than FX-8350 - 360 vs 319 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
Overwatch 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
FPS
319
88.61111111111111%
Value, €/FPS
€0.48/FPS
100%
Price, €
€152.6
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €152.6 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 44060 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
360
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.49/FPS
97.95918367346938%
Price, €
€176.93
86%
FPS Winner
Buy for €176.93 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 44061 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8350 | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
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 | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |