CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4440 vs 8350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-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

Winner
AMD FX 8350 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8350  based on its overclocking.

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
Front view of AMD FX 8350

AMD FX 8350

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4440

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4440

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
Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 159.66W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,882 vs 1,525 Around 25% 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 performance per watt 10.94 pt/W vs 4.9 pt/W Around 2.2x better performance per watt
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
Newer Jul, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 8 months later
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 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) 4.71 GHz vs 3.29 GHz Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 6,456 More than 40% better PassMark score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 3.54 GHz Around 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 12,126 vs 9,965 More than 20% better geekbench (64-bit) score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4440 vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i5 4440
9,131
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit)

Core i5 4440
9,965
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i5 4440
9,965
FX 8350
12,796

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i5 4440
6,390
FX 8350
6,880
Core i5 4440 FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com

Passmark

Core i5 4440
6,456
FX 8350
9,134
Core i5 4440 FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i5 4440
1,882
FX 8350
1,525

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 virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 10.94 pt/W 4.9 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W

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 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.29 GHz 4.71 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.54 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 3,691.6 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.29 GHz 4.71 GHz

integrated graphics

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
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i5 4440
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 7 comments.
i5 WAS better at gaming prior the release of DirectX12. DX12 games can utilize multi-core threads and thus amd cpus showing 10-12 TIMES performance boost. And its also a matter of optimization. For examle Battlefield 4 was AMD-FX optimized, so an 8350 outruns EVERY intel CPU in its price-range in that game. Gaming industry changes, and single core performance will mean nothing in 1-2 years when DX12.1 come out.
I would love both :D, i need to make a choice though... I will probably go with the 8350 :)
Indeed. I hope that guy is just trolling, and doesn't seriously think that the FX is better. It's funny how they call this website Intel-biased whereas this comparison result May Haswell be AMD-biased.
Lol your mad! In gaming the i5 4440 is better, in having 100 tabs open in chrome, the fx is better. Single core performance just smashed you!
fx is da best and beats intel if you taking the i5 4440 you will be an idiot
More people being happier because of 'brand loyalty' doesn't make the i5 better nor the review biased in fact the people who say the i5 is better because of loyalty are biased, and you don't have to touch any settings, if you don't want to overclock you don't have to.
I think this is biased and more people will be happier with the i5 due to brand loyalty and the fact you don't have to touch any settings and the Intel wins by default.
comments powered by Disqus