Winner
AMD FX 8350
CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8350 based on its overclocking.
See full details| | AMD FX 8350 vs 4300 |
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Significantly more l3 cache 8 MB |
| | More cores 8 | | More threads 8 |
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)The new AMD 'Piledriver' modules are essentially revamped 'Bulldozer' cores.
| | Much lower typical power consumption 77.19W | | Significantly better performance per dollar 7.38 pt/$ |
| | Much lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year | | Much lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year |
by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)At £70 this would have been tempting for the rig-builder on a tight budget - it happily outstrips the Ivy Bridge i3 in terms of multi-threaded goodness and can be pushed up to speeds that beat it in gaming terms too.
AMD FX 8350CPUBoss Winner | | |
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 4 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly more l3 cache | 8 MB | vs | 4 MB | 2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.8 GHz | More than 5% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 9,134 | vs | 4,713 | Around 95% better PassMark score | |||
| Significantly better geekbench (32-bit) score | 10,993 | vs | 5,477 | More than 2x better geekbench (32-bit) score | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 22,674 | vs | 12,857 | More than 75% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| Slightly better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,525 | vs | 1,420 | More than 5% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| |||||||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 77.19W | vs | 159.66W | 2.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better performance per dollar | 7.38 pt/$ | vs | 5.25 pt/$ | More than 40% better performance per dollar | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | vs | 56.1 $/year | 2.5x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | vs | 159.62 $/year | Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Slightly better performance per watt | 6.6 pt/W | vs | 5.05 pt/W | More than 30% better performance per watt | |||
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
FX 8350 | by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)In Cinebench the AMD chip is only a little over 5 per cent slower, and in X264 there's less than a single per cent difference between them.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)Looking at the physics score we can see a difference of just under 900 points with the AMD FX-8350 taking the lead with 7325 3DMarks.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)Curious about real world scenarios, we decided to drop Furmark and ran 3DMark 11 on the performance preset and took the maximum power consumption during the first GPU test.
summary | FX 8350 | vs | 4300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.8 GHz | |
| Cores | Octa core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| AM3+ | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | Yes | |
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AVX | |||
| XOP | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| FMA4 | |||
| F16C | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | None | None | |
| Label | N/A | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | N/A | N/A | |
details | FX 8350 | vs | 4300 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 4 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 4 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 709 | 7 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.7 GHz | 4.68 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.99 GHz | 5 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.7 GHz | 4.68 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 125W | 95W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 56.1 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 159.62 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 5.05 pt/W | 6.6 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 159.66W | 77.19W | |
| AMD FX 8350 | AMD FX 4300 |
| VS | |
| $235 | $175 | |
| 4670K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $325 | $175 | |
| 4770K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $330 | $175 | |
| 3770K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $175 | |
| 8320 vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $230 | $175 | |
| 3570K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $160 | $175 | |
| 7850K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $240 | $175 | |
| 4690K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $249 | $325 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $161 | $225 | |
| N3530 vs 3110M | ||
| VS | |
| $340 | $325 | |
| 4790K vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| N2830 vs 3217U | ||
| VS | |
| $97 | $281 | |
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 4700MQ vs 5750M | ||
| VS | |
| 800 vs 5 Octa | ||