CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3570K 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

8.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 3570K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 3570K  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 3570K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3570K

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 107.5W vs 159.66W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 6,557 vs 4,338 More than 50% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower annual home energy cost 38.81 $/year vs 56.1 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 67.4 °C vs 61 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 106 $/year vs 159.62 $/year Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
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 clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.8 GHz More than 10% 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
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
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
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.54 GHz Around 95% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Significantly better performance per dollar 8.87 pt/$ vs 3.34 pt/$ Around 2.8x better performance per dollar
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 11,483 vs 10,311 More than 10% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.73 GHz vs 4.61 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Apr, 2012 Release date 5 months later

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

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 3570K
10,311
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 3570K
2,650,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 3570K
10,832
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 3570K
11,824
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i5 3570K
15,009
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 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

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 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
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
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 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,400,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 34 21
Operating temperature Unknown - 67.4°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 470 709
Overclock review score 4 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.61 GHz 4.73 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.54 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,406.6 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.61 GHz 4.73 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 5.07 pt/W 5.84 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.
because is a quad core and not an octacore cpu. and such a comparison does not make any scense. A quad vs an octacore? Make it one core per module and test them again. Overclock them to the same frequency and test them again. That's why 3570k is better from 8350.
Well.. The only thing that i see through this comparison is that amd fanboys are cheering cause the 8350 has beat the 3570k. Really? But i can se more clearly that amd needs more cores and threads to beat intel..!! It's like bringing a V8 engine to beat a 4cylinder engine!! LOOL (troll) comparing a 8 core cpu vs a 4core cpu, or a six (unlocked) core cpu vs a dual locked cpu it is ok, it is normal... This is what i see from an amd fanboy. Even a 9590 vs a 3570k it's fair comparison.... Why don't you compare equal hardware? Try this... http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-3970X-vs-AMD-FX-6300 Same year production, both of them six core//same frequency//unlocked//same turbo core speed.. OOOOPS.. that is FORBIDDEN... I know i know amd fanboys, it's like comparing a Ferrari vs a Skoda.. It's out of the price range.... Btw i own AMD PHENOM II X4 965, AMD PHENOM II X6 BLACK 1100T, AMD FX 6300, AMD FX 8350, Intel core i5 750, Intel Core i5 2500k, Intel Core i7 3770k, Intel Core i5 4690k, and i can say for sure that Intel is way much better and faster to every kind of workload office and gaming, from any Amd cpu.
Why do you say that?
Even if you are working remotely there is no reason you can't turn off your computer when not in use. I have a 8350 and a SanDisk SSD. It takes Windows 10 less than 30 seconds to boot and launch all background processes. If for whatever reason you choose to use a HDD as your boot drive then just put your computer to sleep when you aren't using it.
Intel wins when it's only marginally better (if at all) than the AMD but more than twice the cost? bullshit.
I'm not with you. See, I have actually been using a 5Ghz 8350 @ 1.428 volts. 24/7 for almost 2 years now. I've compared how much it costs to run to my newer Media PC that has an 4690k. It may cost me maybe 80 cents a month more to run the 8350 setup and it is overvolted and overclocked. Maybe electricity costs more where you are located. I hope that's the case because if not your not doing a very good job at your job. Or maybe you are if intel is lining your pockets...
Growth up? lol
you have no idea what you are talking about. And tek is fine, just because you can't pay attention to an hour long video doesn't make the tek a joke. Grow up and quit sucking brand cocks.
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UKz42uQ1Y
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.
comments powered by Disqus