Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is 1752 days newer than the cheaper FX-8350.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
- Performs up to 3% better in Dead Space than FX-8350 - 149 vs 145 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-8350 - 32 vs 8 threads
Advantages of AMD FX-8350
- Up to 17% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - $185.0 vs $221.76
- Up to 14% better value when playing Dead Space than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - $1.28 vs $1.49 per FPS
- Consumes up to 31% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - 125 vs 180 Watts
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
FPS
149
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.49/FPS
85%
Price, $
$221.76
83%
FPS Winner
Buy for $221.76 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 11 minutes ago
Buy for $185 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 10 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X | vs | AMD FX-8350 |
---|---|---|
Aug 10th, 2017 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
Ryzen Threadripper | Collection | FX |
Whitehaven | Codename | Vishera |
AMD Socket SP3r2 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
16 | Cores | 8 |
32 | Threads | 8 |
3.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
180 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
34.0x | Multiplier | 20.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | Yes |