CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 2500K vs 8350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core i5 2500K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 2500K  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 Core i5 2500K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 2500K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 2500K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 2500K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower idle power consumption 73.4W vs 92W More than 20% lower idle power consumption
Much lower peak power consumption 125.6W vs 182.21W More than 30% lower peak power consumption
Significantly lower typical power consumption 112.55W vs 159.66W Around 30% lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,863 vs 1,525 More than 20% better PassMark (Single core) score
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 5,860 vs 4,338 More than 35% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.03 GHz vs 4.7 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 41.29 $/year vs 56.1 $/year More than 25% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 110.03 $/year vs 159.62 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Much 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
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.7 GHz Around 15% higher turbo clock speed
Significantly higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.3 GHz More than 20% higher clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,147 vs 5,433.6 More than 85% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 6,383 Around 45% better PassMark score
Marginally newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 1 years later
Better performance per dollar 5.53 pt/$ vs 4.8 pt/$ More than 15% better performance per dollar

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 2500K vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i5 2500K
10,408
FX 8350
11,049

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
6,880
Core i5 2500K FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com
The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Cinebench R11.5

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 R11.5 (Single Core)

Passmark

FX 8350
9,134
Core i5 2500K 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)

FX 8350
1,525
Curious about real world scenarios, we decided to drop Furmark and ran 3DMark 11 on the performance preset and took the maximum power consumption during the first GPU test.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Reviews Word on the street

Core i5 2500K  vs FX 8350 

9.0
6.0
The Core i5-2500K also lacks Intel's Hyper-Threading technology, which means its four cores generate a maximum of four processing threads rather than the Core i7-2600K's eight, and that you can expect a drop in performance when working in highly threaded applications.
Core i5 2500K

9.0
8.0
In terms of 3D performance, the detail spec changes include an upgrade from DX10 to DX10.
Core i5 2500K

Overall

9.4 Out of 10
7.9 Out of 10

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 2500K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.7 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1155
AM3+
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
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 3000 N/A
Latest DirectX 10.1 N/A
Number of displays supported 2 N/A
GPU clock speed 850 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,100 MHz N/A
3DMark06 5,275 N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 21,333.32 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

Core i5 2500K  vs
FX 8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 1 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclock popularity 3,179 709
Overclock review score 5 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 5.03 GHz 4.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.1 GHz 4.99 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,433.6 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.03 GHz 4.7 GHz

power consumption

TDP 95W 125W
Annual home energy cost 41.29 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 110.03 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 6.21 pt/W 5.16 pt/W
Idle power consumption 73.4W 92W
Peak power consumption 125.6W 182.21W
Typical power consumption 112.55W 159.66W
Intel Core i5 2500K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 4 comments.
For a old 4 cores the I5 2500K is a beast, and today it is
Hi! AMD FX 83XX is very good processors! ;) Intel i5 2500K (LGA1155) Intel status: End of life.
If they both score 8.2, doesn't that make it a tie? The best recommendation would be to say get the 2500K if you need the best single-core performance, the FX-8350 if you use primarily software that is multi-threaded.
Intel biased match of these CPUs. Intel only beats the AMD in single core performance in this comparison, AMD, however, beats this Intel in the other benchmarks. Sorry but the AMD wins this match overall.
comments powered by Disqus