Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 3900XT outperforms the cheaper FX-6350 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-6350 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen 9 3900XT is 2626 days newer than the cheaper FX-6350.
Advantages of AMD FX-6350
- Up to 78% cheaper than Ryzen 9 3900XT - $100.0 vs $450.0
- Up to 76% better value when playing The Last of Us Part I than Ryzen 9 3900XT - $0.79 vs $3.26 per FPS
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT
- Performs up to 9% better in The Last of Us Part I than FX-6350 - 138 vs 127 FPS
- Consumes up to 16% less energy than AMD FX-6350 - 105 vs 125 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-6350 - 24 vs 6 threads
The Last of Us Part I
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
FPS
127
92.02898550724638%
Value, $/FPS
$0.79/FPS
100%
Price, $
$100
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $100 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349093 minutes ago
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
FPS
138
100%
Value, $/FPS
$3.26/FPS
24.23312883435583%
Price, $
$450
22%
FPS Winner
Buy for $450 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 349093 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6350 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT |
---|---|---|
Apr 29th, 2013 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Vishera | Codename | Matisse |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 12 |
6 | Threads | 24 |
3.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 105 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
19.5x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |