Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 5900X 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 5900X is 2747 days newer than the cheaper FX-6350.
Advantages of AMD FX-6350
- Up to 64% cheaper than Ryzen 9 5900X - $100.0 vs $279.0
- Up to 58% better value when playing Elden Ring than Ryzen 9 5900X - $0.9 vs $2.15 per FPS
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
- Performs up to 17% better in Elden Ring than FX-6350 - 130 vs 111 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
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
FPS
111
85.38461538461539%
Value, $/FPS
$0.9/FPS
100%
Price, $
$100
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $100 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348971 minutes ago
Desktop • Nov 5th, 2020
FPS
130
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.15/FPS
41.86046511627907%
Price, $
$279
35%
FPS Winner
Buy for $279 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348971 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
Desktop • Nov 5th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-6350 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X |
---|---|---|
Apr 29th, 2013 | Release Date | Nov 5th, 2020 |
FX | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Vishera | Codename | Vermeer |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 12 |
6 | Threads | 24 |
3.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.8 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 105 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
19.5x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |