CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4370 vs 7850K among desktop CPUs (45 to 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD A10 7850K 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD A10 7850K  based on its overclocking.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 4370

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 4370

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 28 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better PassMark score 5,574 vs 5,501 Almost the same
Lower typical power consumption 43.88W vs 52.81W More than 15% lower typical power consumption
Newer Jul, 2014 vs Jan, 2014 Release date 5 months later
Lower annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 15% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD A10 7850K

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 7850K

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 72.4 °C vs 66.4 °C Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 4370 vs A10 7850K

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)

Core i3 4370
12.74 mPixels/s
A10 7850K
17.29 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i3 4370
177.51 fps
A10 7850K
266.59 fps

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i3 4370
-1 fps
A10 7850K
1.44 fps

Sky Diver Data courtesy FutureMark

Core i3 4370
3,197
A10 7850K
6,222

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4370
7,410
A10 7850K
7,022

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4370
3,511
A10 7850K
2,328

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4370
4,845,000 MB/s
A10 7850K
2,370,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i3 4370
5,574
A10 7850K
5,501

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 4370  vs
A10 7850K 
Clock speed 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-2133
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 34,133.32 MB/s

details

Core i3 4370  vs
A10 7850K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
Manufacture process 22 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 66.4°C Unknown - 72.4°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 Radeon™ R7 Series

power consumption

TDP 54W 65W
Annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 22.42 pt/W 9.86 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.88W 52.81W
Intel Core i3 4370
Report a correction
AMD A10 7850K
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
+1 onstrike112 xD
4 for gaming 4 for background applications
Enough said...
https://teksyndicate.com/videos/logans-rig-vs-pistols-rig-amd-9590-r9-290x-vs-intel-i7-4930k-gtx-780ti
I see what you're getting at but... When you put a Amd cpu with a amd gpu and you actually look at real world benchmarks You see how little hyperthreading really does. Game devs never optimize games for more than 4 cores.
Thief DX11 http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-MMO-ArcheAge-mantle-td11_proz.jpg vs Mantle http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-MMO-ArcheAge-mantle-tm_proz.jpg Enough said...
Well honestly the A10 series isn't really worth it but... The Fx series is amazing for the cost Especially when compared to intel products marketed at the same price. Regardless of your benchmarks which don't necessarily seem to be 100% accurate. You can't compare a 8350 to the i5 or I7 being its not even close to the same price. Any game that is well optimized and uses mantle or dx12. You're going to see similar performance between Intel and Amd. The I3 series just isnt worth it to me. Especially when you consider the twitch streaming and architectural rendering capabilities of having more cores. Not to mention how easy it is to overclock the fx line.
For iGPU I agree with you, for dGPU you're deluding yourself. Even with less cores the i3 wins over FX 8xxx and 9xxx for games, on top of it it's cheaper and it's more energy efficient. Even in games that use 6+ cores, see: <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Far_Cry_4-nv-test-fc_proz.jpg">Far Cry 4 chart</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Far_Cry_4-nv-test-FarCry4_amd.jpg">CPU usage across AMD cores</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-strategy-Sid_Meiers_Civilization_Beyond_Earth-test-civilizationbe_proz.jpg">Civ V chart</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-strategy-Sid_Meiers_Civilization_Beyond_Earth-test-civilizationbe_amd.jpg">CPU usage across AMD cores</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Alien_Isolation_-test-alien_proz_amd.jpg">Alien Isolation Radeon chart</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Alien_Isolation_-test-alien_proz_nv.jpg">Alien Isolation Geforce chart</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Alien_Isolation_-test-alien_amd.jpg">CPU usage across AMD cores</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_proz.jpg">AC: Unity chart</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_amd.jpg">CPU usage across AMD cores</a> <a href="http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Thief_-test-proz.jpg">Thief</a> And so on... http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36940392&postcount=22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0fjMmhpAxA http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1074 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html http://www.hardware.fr/articles/901-4/performances-jeux-3d.html The ONLY thing that can give AMD FX 8350 10~20 FPS over the i3 is Battlefield 4 Multiplayer. See? The i3 brings far more cost/benefit than any current AMD chip. Games where the FXs are good are the exception to the rule and even then it's practically a tie with the cheaper i3. That's unfortunate, I wish AMD could compete, but they can't.
Ok well unless you download mods for Far Cry 4 it's not going to launch. Obviously hyper threading is a huge advantage towards Intel chips but... I would definitely recommend a cpu with 4 physical cores over 2 for gaming. For budget gamers Intel will never really be able to compete with Amd.
Far Cry 4 runs on the i3 flawlessly because of the hyper threading (it has 2 cores but what matters are the 4 threads).
Far Cry 4 won't even launch on a dual core.
The i3 runs games that utilize 4+ cores very fine, better than 8 core FX Visheras.
ur opinion is an opininon not a fact .. these apus make gr8 htpc n casual gaming pcs
You are aware more games and other software being optimized for quad cores. The I3 and pentium anniversary edition are both dual cores. So down the road you are going to SOL with any dual core processor.
The topic as far as I concerned is about budget and that what you can afford. Think long term. I can explain you, but it is not short. More powerful CPU + GPU combo use less energy in all cases, depends on usage. So pay a bit more for the hardware and save electricity. You better off with dedicated GPU. I did my own tests but you can stick to AMD.
Not a single word of what you said is on-topic here, APUs are very different story and a i3+dGPU costs much more.
If you have an i3 haswell + a GTX 750 Ti you beat the AMD in performance and power consumption too. Within 2-3 years these 2 will earn their price as your electricity bill will be less. Maybe you buy new MoBo + CPU combo every 6 months. I used to be an AMD fan until FX series (maybe the Phenom II was the last decent CPU family). Nowadays does not worth to buy AMD. Almost the same price as Intel CPUs, worse performance + more power needed for AMD CPUs. I am wondering why they are still existing. Who buys them. It is a shame to be that bad after a successful past in CPU history.
Right.
Some people can't afford a dedicated GPU, and that's a reason to go with an AMD APU.
That's why i go for it. Inside video cards i use NVIDIA, that's another reason to choose the i3.
So what? Some people care and that must be an item when you compare the two processors. You can't just go shouting the i3 is better because in the graphics front it isn't.
The problem is i don't care about integrated graphics.
It really does depend on what the CPU will be used for. If its intended use is in a system that will have a dedicated GPU then the Intel is the better choice. For a budget rig that will be utilizing the IGP the Kaveri is a better choice. Intel's focus (with newer die manufacturing processes) is greater individual core performance and power efficiency. AMD's focus is on more cores and more powerful integrated graphics. The Kaveri's R7 IGP thoroughly outperforms the HD4400 and HD4600 and meets the Iris Pro on more or less equal footing (but with a significant AMD advantage in dollar/performance). The problem is that the biggest selling point of AMD's Kaveri is the dual-graphics feature that has, thus far, proven underwhelming. The dollar/performance ratio of the 7850k+R7 250 is so poor that using an Intel i3 (or even the G3258 dual-core for that matter) coupled with a reasonable dedicated graphics card is more economical. Hopefully AMD can solve their pricing and driver issues because stiff competition in a market can only mean a win for consumers but right now I don't see AMD living up to all the hype of Mantle & HSA2.0 just yet.
Not if you try to play using the integrated graphics. ;)
Yep... this i3 is better than this 7850K even when it has just 2 core.
comments powered by Disqus