CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4790K vs 8350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

4790K
8.4
FX 8350
7.5
Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

4790K
10.0
FX 8350
7.6
Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

4790K
5.1
FX 8350
5.1
TDP

Value

4790K
6.8
FX 8350
7.4
Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

4790K
8.1
FX 8350
7.0

Winner
Intel 4790K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel 4790K  based on its performance and single-core performance.

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 4790K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel 4790K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel 4790K

Reasons to consider the
Intel 4790K

Report a correction
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 71.5W vs 159.66W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Slightly higher turbo clock speed 4.4 GHz vs 4.2 GHz Around 5% higher turbo clock speed
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,534 vs 1,525 More than 65% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 8,785 vs 4,338 More than 2x better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 16,699 vs 12,153 More than 35% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 11,300 vs 9,134 Around 25% better PassMark score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 33,538 vs 22,674 Around 50% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Better performance per watt 15.09 pt/W vs 5.05 pt/W Around 3x 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
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 8 MB vs 1 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,147 vs 6,925.3 More than 45% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better performance per dollar 5.19 pt/$ vs 3.91 pt/$ Around 35% better performance per dollar

Benchmarks Real world tests of 4790K vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

4790K
15,652
FX 8350
10,993

GeekBench (64-bit)

4790K
16,699
FX 8350
12,153

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

4790K
33,538
FX 8350
22,674
4790K FX 8350 @ anandtech.com
The gains are smallest in general-application suites like PCMark 7 and larger in CPU-intensive programs like Photoshop CS6, the rendering program POV-RAY, and the 3D rendering test, Cinebench 11.5.
4790K | by PCMag (Jul, 2014)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

4790K
8,785
FX 8350
4,338
4790K 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)

Passmark

4790K
11,300
FX 8350
9,134
4790K 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)

4790K
2,534
FX 8350
1,525
The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Reviews Word on the street

4790K  vs FX 8350 

8.0
6.0
When we set the Core i7-4790K to the same 3.5GHz base/3.9GHz Turbo clock speeds as the Intel Core i7-4770K, it ran a full 15 degrees cooler—50 degrees Celsius, compared with 65 degrees Celsius for the Intel Core i7-4770K.
4790K

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

4790K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 4 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.4 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Is unlocked Yes 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 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,250 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

4790K  vs
FX 8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 8
L2 cache 1 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.61 GHz 4.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.84 GHz 4.99 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,925.3 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.61 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 15.09 pt/W 5.05 pt/W
Typical power consumption 71.5W 159.66W
Intel 4790K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 5 comments.
Remembering, the FX 9590 is worse than the 4790k in stock, and the clock is 4.7GHz
Baseclock for 8370E is 3.3GHz compared to 8370 which is 4GHz.
Yeah the new 8370E from amd uses same power as intel, (sub 100 watt) has even better performance and same 5GHZ overclockability allowing to to surpass the 4790k. (4770k=8320/50) (4790k=8370e)
Bearing in mind its age too, I'd completely agree.
Well, it is impressive how the FX being more like a quad core with a physical form of hyperthreading being close to this monster. This means alot for AMD.
comments powered by Disqus