Winner
AMD FX 8350
CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8350 based on its overclocking.
See full details Intel Core i5 4440 vs AMD FX 8350 |
Released July, 2013
Intel Core i5 4440
- 3.1 GHz
- Quad core
8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i5 4440
 | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms |
| | Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W | | Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,889 |
VS
Released October, 2012
AMD FX 8350
- 4 GHz
- Octa core
- Unlocked
8.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 8350
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz |
| | Significantly higher clock speed 4 GHz | | Is unlocked Yes |
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)The new AMD 'Piledriver' modules are essentially revamped 'Bulldozer' cores.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4440 vs 8350
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 1 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | AMD FX 8350CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 typical power consumption | 68.25W | vs | 159.66W | 2.3x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,889 | vs | 1,525 | Around 25% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 11.9 pt/W | vs | 5.32 pt/W | Around 2.2x better performance per watt | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 50% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 20.24 $/year | vs | 56.1 $/year | 2.8x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 73.58 $/year | vs | 159.62 $/year | 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Marginally newer | Jul, 2013 | vs | Oct, 2012 | Release date 8 months later | |||
| |||||||
| 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 turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 3.3 GHz | More than 25% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.1 GHz | Around 30% higher clock speed | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| 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 better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 10,147 | vs | 3,691.6 | Around 2.8x better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.74 GHz | vs | 3.29 GHz | Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better PassMark score | 9,134 | vs | 6,488 | More than 40% better PassMark score | |||
| Better geekbench (32-bit) score | 11,100 | vs | 9,234 | More than 20% better geekbench (32-bit) score | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.98 GHz | vs | 3.1 GHz | More than 60% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4440 vs FX 8350
GeekBench (32-bit)
GeekBench
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
Passmark
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)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.
Passmark (Single Core)
FX 8350 | by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)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.
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i5 4440 | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 4.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Octa core | |
| Is unlocked | No | 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 | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4600 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,100 MHz | 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 4440 | 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 | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.29 GHz | 4.74 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.1 GHz | 4.98 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 3,691.6 | 10,147 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.29 GHz | 4.74 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 84W | 125W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 20.24 $/year | 56.1 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 73.58 $/year | 159.62 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 11.9 pt/W | 5.32 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 68.25W | 159.66W | |
 Intel Core i5 4440  Report a correction |  AMD FX 8350 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $200 | $240 | |
| 8350 vs 4670K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $340 | |
| 8350 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $230 | |
| 8350 vs 3570K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $330 | |
| 8350 vs 3770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $160 | |
| 8350 vs 8320 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | ||
| 8350 vs 7850K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $200 | |
| 8350 vs 4570 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $47 | $117 | |
| E3300 vs E4600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $340 | ||
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| | VS | |
| $240 | $340 | |
| 4670K vs 4770K | ||
| | VS | |
| $200 | $240 | |
| 8350 vs 4670K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $281 | |
| 3230M vs 4200U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $340 | $332 | |
| 4770K vs 4820k | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $393 | |
| 4200U vs 4500U | ||
