CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4590 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

8.5

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 4590 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4590  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 4590

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4590

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 4590 vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4590
10,601
FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4590
3,345
FX 8350
2,193

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4590
4,650,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4590
10,266
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4590
11,085
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i5 4590
11,085
FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i5 4590
7,229
FX 8350
9,134

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i5 4590
2,113
FX 8350
1,525

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4590  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.7 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
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 10.33 pt/W 5.73 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W

details

Core i5 4590  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 33 21
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

PassMark (Overclocked) 2,861.9 10,147

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 1,150 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i5 4590
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 16 comments.
This site is amazingly BIASED, Why compare integrated graphics? The score should be N/A not 0.0 This is a piss poor way to compare chips.
Seems to be a lot of weight attached to the cpu's integrated graphics performance... I think that category should just be removed. I can't imagine that anyone who is comparing any 2 CPUs with this tool gives any consideration to whether or not it performs better as a GPU. If AMD ever finds a reliable way to split up any workload so it can be run simultaneously with 4+ cores instead of the more common 1 to 2... Their employees will be celebrating in the streets. "WE WERE RIGHT!! MORE CORES IS BEST CORES!!!!" (I use an FX8350 Black)
lol just build it yourself.... Cyberpowerpc? ew.
Correction, it depends on the workload.
exactly!!! FX is Better!
this Web is paid for Intel, All Intel Proccessors are better in this Web, this is fake, a 8350FX is so much powerfull
WOW, this is like my build that I've been wanting! Have you built it yet? I'd really like to know if its worth while.
how on earth did i5 come out top?? the 8350 beat it in literally every area except single core performance, and since before long all our games will be multi-threaded why is that seemingly so important?????
AMD SELL THEIR PRODUCT BY MAKE MARKETING FOR SPECS NOT ABOUT THE REAL PERFORMANCE :D
Intel the best CPU for gaming & any with high end performance AMD only games else super slow :D because his core is poor vs Intel AMD use tricks on number to sell their product in CPU specially for persons that not IT or not very aware with CPU for example AMD FX 6300 6core the person not aware will think that he will beat CI5 or CI7 cause its 6 core & ci5 & ci7 quad core :D the answer is why? CI5 & CI7 beat FX 6300 because ci5 = 4 core\4 thread , ci7 start from = 4 core\8 thread and higher :D, and in real FX 6300 performance as CI3 :D AMD FX 6300 = 6 core ci3 = 2core\4 thread :D
bullshit, FX 8350 all cores 9,134 and 4590 is 7,237 so? winner is 4590! , idiot
Hmm seems like cpu boss might get paid by intel if not there fanboys.
It's because not everytime you'll be able to utilize the use of all cores. As majority of the time, a reliable single core + stability is enough. In gaming, a processor's higher performance per core is better in games as not all games will be able to use all (4 or 8) cores.
On cpu boss all is about single core performance. Perhaps this score still using one core. On another benchmark like fturmark using all core and power of the cpu performance. That's why i never believe in this website. Sincerely, ANT
blainec is right..I do not understand this score comparison on CPUBOSS...
The weight of the single core score need to be significantly less. This is getting ridiculous cpuboss.
comments powered by Disqus