In Atomfall, the FX-4350 is slower than the Core Ultra 9 275HX. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
FX-4350
No clear advantages
Core Ultra 9 275HX
- Up to 29% faster in Atomfall – 246 vs 190 FPS
- Up to 29% faster in Atomfall
- Is 11 years and 8 months newer – Jan 13, 2025 vs Apr 29, 2013
- Is 11 years and 8 months newer
- Consumes up to 56% less energy – 55 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 56% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-4350 vs Core Ultra 9 275HX: Comparison of performance and price
FX-4350
Apr 29th, 2013
Average FPS
190 FPS
77%
Min 1% FPS
142 FPS
77%
Price, $
$82.71
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.43/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 9 275HX
Jan 13th, 2025
Average FPS
246 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
184 FPS
100%
Price, $
...
Value, $/FPS
...
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-4350 vs Core Ultra 9 275HX in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-4350 vs Core Ultra 9 275HX in core CPU performance specifications
FX-4350
Apr 29th, 2013
Cores
4-core
17%
L3 Cache
8 MB
22%
Base Frequency
4.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.3 GHz
80%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
29%
Core Ultra 9 275HX
Jan 13th, 2025
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.7 GHz
64%
Turbo Frequency
5.4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-4350 Apr 29th, 2013 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 9 275HX Jan 13th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Apr 29th, 2013 | Released | Jan 13th, 2025 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Laptop |
| AM3+ | Socket | Intel BGA 2114 |
| 125 W | Power Consumption | 55 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
