CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4460 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

8.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 4460 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4460  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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4460

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4460

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4460 vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
9,739
FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
3,086
FX 8350
2,193

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
4,300,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
9,462
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4460
10,351
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i5 4460
10,351
FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i5 4460
6,664
FX 8350
9,134

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i5 4460
1,946
FX 8350
1,525

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4460  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.2 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.4 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1150
AM3+
Is unlocked No 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
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

Core i5 4460  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
Clock multiplier 32 21
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 61°C

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

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 9.47 pt/W 5.74 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W
Intel Core i5 4460
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
Yeah, just about now. My comment was from a year ago. Trust me, before it goes mainstream AMD Zen has to get to market first. Will take at least 1 or 2 more years before you actually need to upgrade the old AMD fx's, phenoms and the old intel core CPU's. So for most people, it's just saving up till that time, "future proofing" is utter bullshit.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4460-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2310vs1489
Bullshit Intel is dad!
Bullshit Intel is best!
Bullshit Intel is godfather!
Bad performance? Laughable.
the intel will get you better performance as each core in it has so much power 4 of them would give you much better performance than 8 bad performance cores. It's like saying it's quality instead of quantity. Although I do like the AMD one, i am not trying to be bias. I thought of buying the AMD.
62 wow that is probably way too close to the top limit I rather have it under 50 when it gets intense .. not to mention in summer +5 temp .on CPU.
depends what you are using it for though, multi-core rendering such as video editing or autocad, get the amd. Gaming, get the i5.
Doom uses Vulcan which can utilize hyper threading, so games area already beginning to support it. If you are due for a cpu upgrade, it's better to future proof yourself if your budget can support it.
Sorry mate. I have used the FX-8350 with its basic cooler for some time and didn't have a problem with it except for the 62ºC max temps while rendering and the noise it was making. Noctua NH-D15 works wonderfully on it though - 35ºC while multitasking.
Please go through this video posted on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n77Raxvgy2s You will know how fx 8350 is better when rendering a video.
Without starting a fight, I hope you know the bottleneck from an fx 8350 on a highend gpu only matters at 1080p. At higher resolution the bottleneck becomes the gpu. If you buy a highend gpu, you shouldn't be gaming at 1080p.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFqQdrs5wEU If you need a gaming processor go for i5,if you need some editing etc. go for fx 8350.I dont say fx is bad for gaming,but in real games i5 win.Deal with that...
This will only happen when games are actually using dx12, why do people believe in myths. It will take a pretty long time before dx12 being mainstream. So the question is, will the game I like to play use dx12. It took DX10 3 years before getting used mainstream and then DX11 was already released.
It does contribute on the AMD side (not really for intel), because stock settings on 8350 will bottleneck any high end gpu being released right now. So your facts are wrong. I speak from experience. I lose 20 fps when I run my GTX 970 with the 8350 on stock settings, the 8350 needs to be overclocked to 4.5ghz at least to cope with the instructions the gpu is giving. And this is on gpu intense titles, so just imagine what it does to a Titan or 980/980 ti.
If you're on a really tight budget for gaming and want to put your money in GPU rather than CPU, you could get an 8350 but you need a really good board to overclock it to a level of usability as well as proper cooling, making the system AS EXPENSIVE as a cheap intel setup. ESPECIALLY if you plan to STRICTLY use it for gaming I'd recommend a flagship i3 or a cheap i5 over this chip any time. With intel you can get away with a cheap motherboard as long as it's decent. This allows you to put extra money in your GPU. You could always later upgrade the CPU to something better, you don't really have that option with AMD right now. Guess we have to see what zen does, until that time I keep being frustrated about my 8350 (it still serves my needs well tho ;) but looking forward to upgrade within a year). If you plan to use programs that use multiple cores and are on a really thight budget, the 8350 is fine and will serve you plenty. But i'd recommend to save up, wait what AMD Zen is going to do. If AMD zen doesn't proove it self, just upgrade to some phat Xeon or i7 (if your needs are workstation related). Sincerely, an AMD Fanboy.
The I5 may say it's "locked" but that's not entirely right. http://forums.vortez.net/overclocking-cooling/5109-how-overclock-non-k-intel-cpus.html this kinda gives you an idea what I mean. I currently have the cpu in question and it's good it works no problems, but I would like to upgrade to an I7 for the hyperthreding. As most people know already intel and amd read there cores a diffrence way. In the end you get what you pay for and both cpu's work very well.
If you bought the i5, you'd save money because you wouldn't have to switch motherboards. A Also not all i7's are 8 core, just one line is (it's also $1000; that's beyond expensive). All i7's tho, have at least 4 cores. If you get a K series Intel processor, it's unlocked so you can do some OC. I run an AMD Phenom 955 @ 3.2GHz, I have no problems running the same programs and games with similar quality as an i5. With that being said, there are times when loading it, it freezes for a sec. That can always be due to my recording software also. However, if you need something for intense processing, you (currently) can't be an Intel equivalent.
Depends on the CPU, because an i7 would be the clear winner, even an i5 4690K or whatever.
although that can all change with dx12 where as rumors say it can use more than just 4 cores
Agreed, gamers Intel the best choice if you have the money, everything else, AMD is the clear winner!
You are talking in terms of an extra quarter a month or the equivalent of leaving an extra lightbulb on at night. The figures above are all hypothetical, meaning if you run all eight cores at 100%, which you know will rarely ever happen unless you prime95 for 24/7 for a year.
I have the FX 8350 processor and the Basic set cooler went short after 20 minutes so I had to install a water cooling System .. maybe it´s worth to mention ;) otherwise i am pretty happy so far.
had the same Trouble deciding :D eventually I went for the 8 core FX ;) and I am happy so far :) I did not even Need to overclock the cpu is fast enough even without it + more stable
comments powered by Disqus