Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Xeon E5-1650 v4 outperforms the more expensive FX-8350 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Xeon E5-1650 v4 is 1336 days newer than the more expensive FX-8350.
Advantages of AMD FX-8350
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4
- Performs up to 7% better in Elden Ring than FX-8350 - 119 vs 111 FPS
- Up to 56% cheaper than FX-8350 - $59.8 vs $135.27
- Up to 59% better value when playing Elden Ring than FX-8350 - $0.56 vs $1.35 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8350 - 12 vs 8 threads
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Buy for €150.15 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 151 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
119
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.56/FPS
100%
Price, €
€66.38
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €66.38 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 153 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8350 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
FX | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Vishera | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
4.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 140 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
20.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |