Winner
AMD FX 8350
CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8350 based on its performance.
See full details| | Intel 4160 vs AMD FX 8350 |
| | Is hyperthreaded Yes | | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Much lower typical power consumption 43.88W |
| | Is unlocked Yes | | Higher clock speed 4 GHz |
| | More l3 cache 8 MB | | Better PassMark score 9,134 |
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)Like the K Series Intel chips, the entire FX range is unlocked, so overclocking is definitely on the menu.
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Intel 4160 6.1 FX 8350 7.0 | |
| Passmark | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Intel 4160 9.0 FX 8350 8.0 | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Power Consumption | |
How much power does the processor require? | |
| Intel 4160 5.2 FX 8350 5.1 | |
| TDP | |
Value | |
| | |
| Intel 4160 7.8 FX 8350 7.5 | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value | |
| Intel 4160 6.9 FX 8350 7.0 | |
| | | AMD FX 8350CPUBoss Winner |
| |||||||
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newer manufacturing process | 22 nms | vs | 32 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 43.88W | vs | 159.66W | 3.6x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,028 | vs | 1,525 | Around 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 13.01 $/year | vs | 56.1 $/year | 4.3x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Better performance per watt | 14.58 pt/W | vs | 5.05 pt/W | Around 3x better performance per watt | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 50% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Marginally newer | Jul, 2014 | vs | Oct, 2012 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 47.3 $/year | vs | 159.62 $/year | 3.4x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Slightly better performance per dollar | 6.06 pt/$ | vs | 5.41 pt/$ | More than 10% better performance per dollar | |||
| |||||||
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| Higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.6 GHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
| More l3 cache | 8 MB | vs | 3 MB | Around 2.8x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Better PassMark score | 9,134 | vs | 5,005 | More than 80% better PassMark score | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 2 | 6 more cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.7 GHz | vs | 3.6 GHz | More than 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.99 GHz | vs | 3.76 GHz | Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
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 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.
summary | Intel 4160 | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Octa core | |
| Is unlocked | No | Yes | |
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | 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 | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4400 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,150 MHz | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1866 | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 29,866.66 MB/s | |
details | Intel 4160 | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 8 | |
| L3 cache | 3 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 4.7 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.76 GHz | 4.99 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.6 GHz | 4.7 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 54W | 125W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 13.01 $/year | 56.1 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 47.3 $/year | 159.62 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 14.58 pt/W | 5.05 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 43.88W | 159.66W | |
| Intel 4160 | AMD FX 8350 |
| VS | |
| $170 | $234 | |
| 8350 vs 4670K | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $325 | |
| 8350 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $330 | |
| 8350 vs 3770K | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $143 | |
| 8350 vs 8320 | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $215 | |
| 8350 vs 3570K | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $160 | |
| 8350 vs 7850K | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $240 | |
| 8350 vs 4690K | ||
| VS | |
| $325 | $253 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | $161 | |
| 3110M vs N3530 | ||
| VS | |
| $325 | $340 | |
| 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| 3217U vs N2830 | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | $105 | |
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 5750M vs 4700MQ | ||
| VS | |
| 5 Octa vs 800 | ||