CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4690K vs 8350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

4690K
7.6
FX 8350
7.5
Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

4690K
9.4
FX 8350
7.6
Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

4690K
5.1
FX 8350
5.1
TDP

Value

4690K
7.3
FX 8350
7.4
Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

4690K
7.6
FX 8350
7.0

Winner
Intel 4690K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel 4690K  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel 4690K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel 4690K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel 4690K

Reasons to consider the
Intel 4690K

Report a correction
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 71.5W vs 159.66W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,253 vs 1,525 Around 50% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,619 vs 4,338 More than 75% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per watt 13.33 pt/W vs 5.05 pt/W Around 2.8x better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
Marginally newer Apr, 2014 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 27,090 vs 22,674 Around 20% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.9 GHz Around 10% higher turbo clock speed
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,147 vs 4,652.1 Around 2.2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 7,773 Around 20% better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.99 GHz vs 4.67 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of 4690K vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

4690K
11,871
FX 8350
10,993

GeekBench (64-bit)

4690K
13,334
FX 8350
12,153

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

4690K
27,090
FX 8350
22,674
4690K FX 8350 @ anandtech.com
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 Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

4690K
7,619
FX 8350
4,338
4690K FX 8350 @ anandtech.com

Passmark

4690K
7,773
FX 8350
9,134
4690K FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net
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)

Passmark (Single Core)

4690K
2,253
FX 8350
1,525
The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

4690K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
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
AVX 2.0
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,200 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

4690K  vs
FX 8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L3 cache 6 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 4.57 GHz 4.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.67 GHz 4.99 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 4,652.1 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.57 GHz 4.7 GHz

power consumption

TDP 88W 125W
Annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 13.33 pt/W 5.05 pt/W
Typical power consumption 71.5W 159.66W
Intel 4690K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus