CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3570K 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 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!
VS

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
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower idle power consumption 67W vs 92W More than 25% lower idle power consumption
Much lower peak power consumption 121W vs 182.21W Around 35% lower peak power consumption
Significantly lower typical power consumption 107.5W vs 159.66W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,012 vs 1,525 More than 30% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 6,557 vs 4,319 More than 50% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per watt 8.04 pt/W vs 5.31 pt/W More than 50% better performance per watt
Significantly 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 7,178 More than 25% better PassMark score
Better cinebench r11.5 score 6.94 vs 6.05 Around 15% better cinebench r11.5 score
Better performance per dollar 4.84 pt/$ vs 4.23 pt/$ Around 15% better performance per dollar
Marginally newer Oct, 2012 vs Apr, 2012 Release date 5 months later

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

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i5 3570K
10,809
FX 8350
11,100

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
6,880
Core i5 3570K 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

We've ticked our usual benchmark boxes with Cinebench rendering, x264 HD video and gaming on the CPU side.
Core i5 3570K | by Tech Radar (Apr, 2012)

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)

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)

Passmark

FX 8350
9,134
Core i5 3570K 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 3570K  vs FX 8350 

8.0
8.0
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

summary

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
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 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
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

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 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclock popularity 470 709
Overclock review score 4 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.66 GHz 4.74 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.81 GHz 4.98 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,406.6 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.66 GHz 4.74 GHz

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 8.04 pt/W 5.31 pt/W
Idle power consumption 67W 92W
Peak power consumption 121W 182.21W
Typical power consumption 107.5W 159.66W
Intel Core i5 3570K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
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?
WHAT does that have to do with the numbers that are in front of all of our faces? Poor job at making an excuse.
You are seriously being a fan boy, that's not true at all.
Troll.
A "common user" has no use for eithe rof these chips. People that actually know what they are doing and need things for certain applications will ALWAYS go Intel for per-core performance. Youre just a bunch of AMD fanboys in here that are willingly blinded by the fanboisim. I feel that is pathetic. If I was setting up a multi VM or multi application server I would go 8 core FX every time. If I need something that requires powerful cores and doesnt have greater than 4 core MP abilities (the vast majority of applications) I would go i5/i7 every time. They both excell at differant things. Stop being a stubborn child.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Please take more English classes. YOU ENGLISH BADLY. YOU SO SUCK COCK OF INTEL LOVELY IN NIGHT TIME
Your "equation" makes no fucking sense. You do know that in intels world the 8350 would be considered a 4 core processor. They do things differently. Pull intels dick out of your ass.
YOU ARE RETARDED
a little late to the party, but I replace my cpu every 18 months.
I can't decide which one to pick, the i5 has less power consumption but Intel keeps on changing their sockets, the FX 8core's socket will last ages and is cheaper but it consumes more power, I might just throw in the extra cash of the 4670K so I can keep up to date with the sockets, it's really hard to decide :/
In fact you still save money buying an 8350 as power consumption in comparison means that you will spend an average of around $10 per year more with the AMD CPU in energy costs. So you are flat out wrong.
Why are single core tests valid when it's 8 core against 4 core?
I hate to be the one to point out an error in their statistics for each processor, but the FX-8350 does include the AVX instruction set, as well as F16C, FMA4 and XOP. Not too many things use them yet, but I know that PCSX2 uses the AVX for their graphics plugins, making for a huge speed increase.
Mantle seemed like the best thing since sliced bread when it was announced!...but....new news has come out on the api and it's not looking as promising as it was made out to be. Not to bring consoles into this, but the xbox one opted out of supporting mantle (a leak and weird to me since the ps4 and xb1 are almost hardware identicle (same cpu,marginally different gpu, ps4 faster ram). and DICE is currently the only game developer to openly say they are going to support mantle so far :/...great idea but it's starting to make me be a little wary of the future for AMD...the 9590 was such a terrible marketing plan for them that it left a bad taste in many consumer and reviewers mouths...
you can get a 680 on amazon right now for $320...sooo.....while amd is nice, the nvidia products are not so overpriced as you make them out to be
Yes, the fx 8350 beats the i5 in gaming while streaming, but in most cases (sure there are exceptions) the I-5 wins in non streaming gaming, The 8350 and amd in general is also VERY fast at video encoding and processing, but that's about it sadly...curse synthetic benchmarks, but the I-5 and intel in general are just the performance kings at the moment, not to mention AMD has a VERY poor memory controller setup compared to even the lowliest of intel cpus...I am on the blue and green team personally (just preference and experience) but I see the appeal to the red side, and as more applications come out that take full use of more cores rather than faster cores, perhaps we will see AMD become competitive again. Also, have you read reviews on the fx-9590? They are actually funny in how they describe it as just a horrible move on AMD's part.
comments powered by Disqus