AMD Phenom X4 9350e - 65W quad-core

Final Thoughts...

Does the Phenom X4 9350e fill its market niche?

Yes and no. Instead of this ambiguous, hand-wavy response that lets me off the hook, lets break it down: AMD claims this CPU is suitable for multi-taskers, we argue there's both a limit to how much you can do at once in addition to waiting for stuff in the background to finish.

For example, if you're listening to music, answering email, surfing the net, encoding video and doing whatever else you need plenty of CPU resource for, but are waiting for it to be done on a low clocked quad-core - this would certainly frustrate someone doing ten things at once.

Unless you've a specific need for something with very low power consumption, again a Phenom X4 9550 or Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 will better suit.

So if we think about actual efficiency where time is valuable too - will a 95W CPU finish the task in three quarters of the time it takes this 65W to? Or will a faster clocked 65W dual-core be more efficient than a 65W lower clocked quad-core? It depends on how you use your PC but from our results, it seems the Phenom x4 9350e is in a bit of a no man's land: while it's quite a bit more energy efficient than other quad cores, it falls short of a good quad core in terms of performance - especially when you turn on Cool'n'Quiet.

In a massive server farm environment we can see the significant cost savings are certainly relevant..but on a single user basis, are massive multi-taskers really concerned with low power or just getting the job(s) done as fast as possible?

We feel this CPU is made for OEMs to throw out a "quad core PC" in small form factor cases, or use cheaper motherboards and smaller heatsinks thus saving cost. A cynic would just claim this is essentially a marketing tool where "four is better than two or three", and there's little doubt the uneducated masses will buy into it, but for the vast majority of people we'd argue that this isn't the case.


The only area we found that the 9350e was beneficial was for a home theatre PC, and even then in just a single instance after using the right codec. The CoreAVC codec is highly threaded and so takes advantage of the extra resources available on the 9350e, compared to the faster clocked dual-core 4850e, which was unable to handle a 1080p MKV all on its own.

However, if it's possible, moving some of the load onto the GPU is still yet again more attractive and more energy efficient. With Media Player Classic - Home Cinema edition set to use the GPU, the 4850e was decidedly overpowered now. We realise not everything can be offloaded onto the GPU - it has to conform to some sort of standard at least.

The Phenom X4 9350e is stuck between a rock and a hard place in that respect. The Phenoms need clock speed to get competitive with what else is on offer, but in this instance, AMD has gone the other way and underclocked the 9350e instead. What's also stopping you from just underclocking and undervolting any other Phenom like the 9550?


There doesn't seem to be too much special with this particular silicon. For the same price there are too many other processor choices that offer better performance in every other area - an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 is virtually the same price (and probably less following the recent price cuts) and offers oodles more performance, and many of our readers can testify to building a very quiet PCs based on this CPU.

We're struggling to think of situations where you'd absolutely need this CPU - the only one we can come up with is if you wanted a quad-core mini-ITX board that's limited to 65W. This would be the only option that would fit, so it wins by default. But then again we fail to understand why you'd buy this over a Phenom X4 9550 which is cheaper and you can simply underclock and undervolt it a touch.

Essentially, unless it fills a specific application you require, then this CPU is not for you. Even if you do decide you need it, you'll need to find a Phenom X4 9350e (it's been a month since launch and they're still not available anywhere UK or State-side).

• Performance
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• -
• 6/10

• Value
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• 7/10

• Overall
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• 7/10

What do these scores mean?