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!

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
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
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 4.3x lower annual home energy cost
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 66.4 °C vs 61 °C Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 3.4x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Jul, 2014 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
More cores 8 vs 2 6 more cores; run more applications at once
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.8 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.69 GHz vs 3.97 GHz Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 3.93 GHz Around 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 4370 vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4370
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4370
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4370
4,845,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i3 4370
FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i3 4370
FX 8350

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i3 4370  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.8 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Dual core Octa core
Is unlocked No Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 22.54 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.88W 159.66W


Core i3 4370  vs
FX 8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L3 cache 4 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 66.4°C Unknown - 61°C


Overclocked clock speed 3.97 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.93 GHz 8.79 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.97 GHz 4.69 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i3 4370
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 14 comments.
Fucking AMD fanboy shitheads in the comments section
It all depends on what you're looking for...with Intel you get a greater per core performance....with AMD you get a lot of cores to work with...if the application you're using can actually utilize more cores....then I'd recommend AMD if it doesn't then intel all the way
keep in mind dat its a 2012 cpu ..n btw this site is biased evry1 knows it
Just for all those who really care and are not just whining because their beloved AMD does not dominate the way want it to: Intel currently has the WAY better architecture on their CPUs. A CPU is more than just a number for cores and a number for clock speed. It processes tasks (instructions) based on a design the developers came up with. (Very) simply put, the CPU performs one action a time. How exactly those actions look like and in what order they are executed etc. is part of the design and varies strongly between Intel and AMD. How many actions per second it can do per second is what determines the clock speed, for example 3 Ghz. Now Intels design is just better, because it manages to execute those actions way more efficiently and thus gets more work done, even if the clock speed of the AMDs is higher. Intel simply makes better use of their clock speed. And for the number of cores the following is currently the case: The i3 has hyperthreading and 2 cores (which as explained above perform a lot better), causing it to deal with up to 4 threads very well, as hyperthreading allows the operating system to shift the job of assigning the tasks of 2 threads to only 1 CPU from the OS (taking up CPU-Power) to the CPU, which does that a lot better. Not near as good as 4 Intel cores would, but better than 2 Intel cores without hyperthreading would. Also AMDs definition of a core is a different one. Their 8-core CPU is actually a CPU with 4 modules, each having 2 integer cores, but not 2 CPUs as in an Intel or earlier AMD. In general, because of Intels better architecture, one of those modules performs considerably worse than a single Intel core, even more so, if the single Intel core has Hyperthreading. Now the Problem is, that still a big majority of real world applications, especially games, does not utilize more than 4 threads. Therefore the Intel do often come out on top. Of course this also shows, where the AMDs have their advantages. As Intels middle class (the i5) does not feature hyperthreading, AMDs 3-4 module CPUs can get ahead of Intels i3 pretty easily and sometimes also ahead of the i5, if the used application does make use of more than 4 threads. But as stated before, those applications and especially games are unfortunately still a minority. Also of course there is again no chance for the AMDs, when compared to Intels i7 or Xeon which have 4 or more cores and hyperthreading and thus feature 8 or more threads. In case anyone thinks is fanboy talk or the result of some brainwash thing, let me tell you that i've had more AMD CPUs than Intel CPUs and those are hard facts, that have been pointed out in thousands of tests and reviews.
You are correct sir. Unfortunately you cannot expect some people to understand things like more efficient use of core clock on CPU instruction level. All some people can do is the following: "OMG theres 8 Cores and high Gigahertzes this has to be the better CPU everone who says otherwhise is stupid intel fanboy its all fake."
Depends on what you want the system for. For Gaming i'd choose a i5 4570k or a i7 4790k at this point in time, on a budget I'd get a FX 8350 or a FX 6350. If your really on a tight budget the AMD A10 7850k is a really good choice and you wont need a dedicated GPU. I wouldn't choose a i3 for anything right now as more things are optimized for more cores where hyper threading is eh, the i3 will still lack in a lot of games, hyper threading don't help a whole lot.
lol... my last 3 cpu's were AMD and I've been relatively happy with them especially because they are good budget cpu's (but are they really?? Where I live, the AMD's prices are getting ridiculously high for what you're getting). I have done a lot of homework lately and I now know how dismal the AMD cpu's really are. I will concede that the 8350 is great for video and graphics work but how many people are into that? (yes I see 2 hands waving at the back of the room). The argument that multi cores are the future when they start making apps that can use more than 2 cores is meaningless to me. I heard that argument 5 years ago and still most apps are only single threaded today. And as for the 9370 or 9590, well I'm not really a tree hugger but sheesh...there is a line I won't cross. I'm afraid the cops might monitor my energy useage and bust my door down thinking I'm running a grow-op. YES, these numbers are correct!! The i3 kicks the 8350 in the groin and as it is doubled over puking, the i3 PILEDRIVES the 8350 pins first into the ground, then kicks sand in its face and walks away with the girl. Take it from me, a former AMD fanboy... show me an AMD fanboy and I will show you someone who hasn't done their homework. ....just sayin'
Ok. only thing to say - that. is. just. sorta. bullshit. Oh btw should I go AMD or Intel?
I dont know what it is that all of you are missing, the joke that is the AMD fanboy maybe? How is the i3 faster? Single core yes it trounces the AMD, all cores the AMD wins, real world application? Depends, more likely then not the i3 will take it as your average user is not going to come close to utilizing all 8 of AMDs garbage cores. Intel bias? More then 3x cheaper to run, cheaper to buy, much better single core performance, plus no integrated gpu means even more cost to AVERAGE users with the necessity to buy a separate gpu. And lets face it, you all must be average users seeing as you're crying about a 3 year old AMD not being as good as a less then a year old intel. Oh right, you are AMDs target market, nevermind, carry on.
how the heck can a lower clocked dual core be faster than a higher clocked octacore?
fucking intel garbage shits
Intel bias at it's finest gentle(wo)men.
am i missing a joke or something
what the ... this is a disaster look at the benchmark@ just look at it
comments powered by Disqus