CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3570K vs 8350


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


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

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


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Intel Core i5 3570K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 3570K  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!

Intel Core i5 3570K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 3570K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 3570K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3570K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly lower typical power consumption 107.5W vs 159.66W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,012 vs 1,525 More than 30% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly 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 6,557 vs 4,338 More than 50% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better performance per watt 7.52 pt/W vs 4.95 pt/W More than 50% better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 38.81 $/year vs 56.1 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 106 $/year vs 159.62 $/year Around 35% 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
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.8 GHz More than 10% higher turbo 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 5,406.6 Around 90% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 7,161 Around 30% better PassMark score
Better cinebench r11.5 score 6.94 vs 6.05 Around 15% better cinebench r11.5 score
Better performance per dollar 6.26 pt/$ vs 4.95 pt/$ More than 25% better performance per dollar
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Apr, 2012 Release date 5 months later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.99 GHz vs 4.67 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 3570K vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i5 3570K
FX 8350

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
Core i5 3570K FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R11.5

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)


FX 8350
Core i5 3570K FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

FX 8350

Reviews Word on the street

Core i5 3570K  vs FX 8350 

It's a decent step forward compared to the previous core, but it's still not a great gaming solution.
Core i5 3570K

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i5 3570K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1155
Is unlocked Yes Yes
Is hyperthreaded No No


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

power consumption

TDP 77W 125W
Annual home energy cost 38.81 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 106 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 7.52 pt/W 4.95 pt/W
Idle power consumption 67W 92W
Peak power consumption 121W 182.21W
Typical power consumption 107.5W 159.66W


Core i5 3570K  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 22 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,400,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 34 21


Overclock popularity 470 709
Overclock review score 4 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.63 GHz 4.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.67 GHz 4.99 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,406.6 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.63 GHz 4.7 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 4000 N/A
Latest DirectX 10.x N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 650 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz N/A
3DMark06 5,339.9 N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i5 3570K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 25 comments.
Even a 10% performance gain will overwhelm a 50% power gain because your TIME is much more valuable than your power bill!
How is the Intel 3570 k a better value when it costs more and has worse performance.
I bought anFX 8350 and love it.Already have it Oc @4800ghz with a cool master 212 evo.
I'd say go for Intel if you want a gaming cpu. Why ? Because the i7 is overkill for gaming. If you want to do stuff like massive video editing and 3d rendering go for the FX-8350. Gaming wise they're pretty close. I have tested both of them. The i5 3570k did a slightly better job in games but in video editing and rendering the FX is just a better choice.
It's not, growth up
all points aside, int he real world usage, an AMD 6 or 8 core cpu can run bf4 on ultra with way over 60 fps depending on your GPU. I still have a 4770k, but I built an AMD for my wife and I really don't tell a difference when I'm gaming. It's like saying you have a FMF muffler is better than your MOPAR muffler on your CR 250 dirt bike
this website is still biased towards intel doesn't matter if u put a 8320 against a i3 4330
That link shows that the only thing better for Intel is integrated graphics :D But noone uses CPU graphics when everyone has strong graphics cards...
Intel is better at overclocking, why? AMD just got higher speeds but that means nothing if the processors comes with completely different manufacture process, intel is more efficien and it is getting much more benefit from extra GHZ, IPC is the key, AMD has patethicly weak IPC and even twelve cores wont help, Fair win for i5
Stick this video into your anus you naive noob, TekSyndicate is a joke... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UKz42uQ1Y
fx 8350 apanha feio do i7
Please stop all these "fanboyism" >.<
Couldn't agree with you more. The entire front page on this site showing top records for different categories is full of Intel CPUs, there are only 3 AMD parts on the entire page. AMD fanboys need to get over the fact that the *actual data* shows that AMD is no longer even relevant in the CPU market except in the ultra-budget area.
This benchmark has nothing to do with GPU, and anyway "APU" means nothing. Both parts have both a CPU and a GPU.
Intel win because intel core i5 3570k cpu with gpu and AMD only apu
not true. you're probably deriving your estimates from that one video, but they didn't actually calculate it right. 80w vs 125w is a difference of about 40w, which is about half of the wattage of a typical intel. that means AMD uses approx 50% more wattage on average. if the difference was only $10 a year, then that would mean intel costs about $20 a year to run. obviously this is highly inaccurate, especially if you use your PC alot. so how do you go from $8 a month to run something (that's well over $100 a year) to only a 10% difference in cost despite using 50% more electricity? that just doesn't add up. furthermore, you actually pump in more electricity than used. so if a processor needs say 125w, you're actually needing to pump in over 150w. most power supplies, even the good ones, can only deliver 80% of the electricity that passes through it into usable electricity for the PC, which means it needs 20% more electricity to pump in the right amount. a 400w power supply is actually a 480w power supply, for example. obviously, 20% of 80w is lower than 20% of 125w. and that's not just for the CPU, that applies to everything powered in a PC. and it ALL adds up. most people own their PC's for about 3-5 years, and it's going to be a trend for some time since it's taking them 5 years just to make processors twice as fast as processors 5 years older. (the phenom II x4 released in 2009 is actually a smidge over/under 50% of the performance of an 8xxx) we're not really going to be seeing huge leaps and bounds like we did in 2000-2008. back then, a simple upgrade could mean triple the performance. today, you'll be lucky to get 20% from intel or amd over previous generations. so people will be generally keeping their PC's longer than 2 years, because there just isn't enough progress in that time to warrant an upgrade. those energy savings costs over a 3-5 year period far outweigh the initial cost benefit of an AMD for the performance. the intels in the long run, last longer, which means more time between upgrades, and cost cheaper when everything is factored in. even the cheapest intel board is capable of overclocking well. but the cheapest or even mid range amd motherboards are really crappy at overclocking. furthermore, due to the high wattage of AMD FX, you're going to reach your boards max TDP long before you reach your max overclock. so if you're running a 125w processor on a 125w board, you have little room for overclocking. you will then need a 220w board, which is more cost.
There are programs that use thread pools which use as many threads as they can get for maximum performance. Some tasks are inherently single threaded of-course but not all. No doubt the multi-core performance will be an improvement for many things. And if you want to run many CPU intensive programs at once, then you are better of with more cores.
Power consumption... Stupid people... You compare just a CPU... Don't you know you equally need a Motherboard? Take a high end AMD MB, it won't be above 150-200 USD. Take an High End Intel MB, you can get easily ripped off for more than 350USD. On the combo CPU+MB, there is easily 200-300 USD difference between the two. You can stay for years with a gain with an AMD, unless you leave your PC on for night and day for 2 years in a row. In Europe, 500USD is the Power Consuption for a WHOLE FAMILY. What a small difference between a CPU consumption can do? Even 50USD per year is unbelievable...
Here's some information to chew on. Now, I'm not saying there is bias in this site. I am only giving you facts to consider, you're an intelligent human, you can draw your own conclusions. CPUBoss is owned by Rebellion Media. In Canada, Rebellion Media received startup funding, from a startup accelerator program, known as "Hyperdrive" from the Communitech Hub. Guess where this connection is going? "Doug Cooper is the managing director of the 'Hyperdrive Startup Accelerator Program', a graduate of the University of Waterloo and former business lead for Intel Corp. in Canada."
The FX8350 is an APU now?
It doesn't really matter, just further shows people what goes own, and still gives you a great idea of what the FX-8350 is competing with and can compete with on the Intel side. Especially when you compare prices.
People going back and forth. And not stating the obvious, The Fact that They Obviously Gimped these Scores or are Dyslexic. I'm sure they've seen it and the comments.....Just refusing to acknowledge it.
Everyone so smart as if they have never heard of Sleep Mode or Power Saver Mode in the control panel....piss poor jobs of making excuses.
Like APU's?
comments powered by Disqus