In Atomfall, the FX-8350 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5-2643 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $157 more expensive!
FX-8350
- Is 7 months and 17 days newer – Oct 23, 2012 vs Mar 06, 2012
- Is 7 months and 17 days newer
- Consumes up to 4% less energy – 125 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 4% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Xeon E5-2643
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall – 194 vs 191 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Atomfall
- Up to 61% cheaper – $100.70 vs $258.02
- Up to 61% cheaper
- Up to 62% better value in Atomfall – $0.51 vs $1.35/FPS
- Up to 62% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
FX-8350 vs Xeon E5-2643: Comparison of performance and price
FX-8350
Oct 23rd, 2012
Average FPS
191 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
143 FPS
99%
Price, $
$258.02
39%
Value, $/FPS
$1.35/FPS
38%
Xeon E5-2643
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
194 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
145 FPS
100%
Price, $
$100.7
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.51/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-8350 vs Xeon E5-2643 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-8350 vs Xeon E5-2643 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-8350
Oct 23rd, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
80%
Base Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Xeon E5-2643
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
4-core
50%
L3 Cache
10 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
82%
Turbo Frequency
3.5 GHz
83%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
FX-8350 Oct 23rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2643 Mar 6th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 6th, 2012 |
| $199.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA2011 |
125W | Power Consumption | 130W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
