CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 2500K vs 8350 among desktop CPUs (over 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

8.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 2500K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 2500K  based on its single-core performance and power consumption.

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 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 typical power consumption 112.55W vs 159.66W Around 30% lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 72.6 °C vs 61 °C Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 2,994 vs 2,193 More than 35% better geekbench 3 single core score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.01 GHz vs 4.73 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 5,860 vs 4,338 More than 35% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Much lower annual home energy cost 41.29 $/year vs 56.1 $/year More than 25% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 110.03 $/year vs 159.62 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per watt 6.96 pt/W vs 5.83 pt/W Around 20% better performance per watt
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
Much higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.3 GHz More than 20% higher clock speed
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.7 GHz Around 15% higher turbo clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,147 vs 5,433.6 More than 85% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.74 GHz More than 85% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Slightly 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
Significantly better performance per dollar 8.86 pt/$ vs 4.21 pt/$ More than 2x better performance per dollar
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Jan, 2011 Release date over 1 years later
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 6,383 Around 45% better PassMark score
Slightly better geekbench 2 (64-bit) score 12,126 vs 11,186 Around 10% better geekbench 2 (64-bit) score

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

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
2,193

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 2500K
2,530,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 2500K
10,319
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 2500K
11,186
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i5 2500K
13,624
FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350
9,134

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350
1,525

Reviews Word on the street

Core i5 2500K  vs FX 8350 

9.0
6.0
In the PCMark Vantage full-system performance test, the Core i5-2500K earned an overall score of 10,271—not at all far behind the Core i7-2600K's result of 10,368, and surprisingly close (all things considered) to the 10,970 we saw with the Core i7-970—Intel's lower-end six-core LGA1366 CPU.
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

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

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
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
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 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,160,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 33 21
Voltage range 1.2 - 1.5V 0.82 - 1.45V
Operating temperature 5 - 72.6°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 3,179 709
Overclock review score 5 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 5.01 GHz 4.73 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.74 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,433.6 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.01 GHz 4.73 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 6.96 pt/W 5.83 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 9 comments.
8 Cores, 8 Threads and a slower real-world-speed with much more power consumption as these 5 year´s old Intel Quad!core... Stay realistic, earliest from "Zen" the cards will be reshuffled!
AMD wins? In which world... 8 Cores, 8 Threads and a slower real-world-speed with much more power consumption as these 5 year´s old Intel Quad!core... Stay realistic Even if you're AMD -Fan, but what and who do you want to defend here? ;-) Earliest from "Zen" the cards will be reshuffled
I would get a 8350 because of DX12 oh and the benchmarks are better.
The i5-2500k is a legendary CPU.
YES IT DOES...BUT...if you compare price of this two??wich you will buy...my opinion FX 8350 kick ass in most of bench"s and overall
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