CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4670 vs 8350 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)


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


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more


CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Intel Core i5 4670 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4670  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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4670

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4670

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 4670 vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670
4,760,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670
FX 8350

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670
FX 8350


Core i5 4670
FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i5 4670
FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i5 4670
FX 8350

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i5 4670  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Is unlocked No Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
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 10.74 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W


Core i5 4670  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
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 61°C


Overclocked clock speed 3.76 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.92 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 4,305.9 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.76 GHz 4.69 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,200 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i5 4670
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction


Showing 15 comments.
Point stands but needs modification, as emulation is for Older Games is where single core might be useful, but with Modern gaming and software, at the very least dual core is where performance is seen rather than single core. Besides emulations are niche compared to what the majority do with the CPU.. But fair enough..
Emulation of PS2 games is VERY important for single core performance. An FX cpu gets downright dominated by Intel CPU line. Either way though, I'd prefer single core performance.
Maybe in some games, but not all and not when it comes to actual work. http://uk.hardware.info/productinfo/benchmarks/3/processors?products[]=186073&specId=11427&tcId=324 http://uk.hardware.info/productinfo/benchmarks/3/processors?products[]=186073&specId=11432&tcId=324 http://uk.hardware.info/productinfo/benchmarks/3/processors?products[]=186073&specId=11426&tcId=324 http://uk.hardware.info/productinfo/benchmarks/3/processors?products[]=186073&specId=11450&tcId=325
doesnt matter, you still can get a 3,8ghz from turbo which is enough to outperform everything that amd has
Hardly the case unless all you do is surf the web or play 1980's retro video games. If you use it for modern gaming or work, multicores are where the real performance is.
Well actually Single Core performance is most important.
thats silly how does the I5 win in this when it only is better in single thread performance..cant trust this site anymore
LOL the real performance overclocked of both the AMD is over 2x more powerful and yet intel still won...
LOL, single core is not so important in some cases. In mine, i use the computer to render 3d art, so, multcore is much more important to me then single core. I will not throw my money away just to get an Intel I7... I always used Intel, but now, i will go with AMD
It's the i5 4670 (Non K) it's locked.
Single core performance - most important FX 8350 won at overclocking ? lol i5 is better at overclocking cause it's getting more from OC FX 8350 at 5.0ghz is slower than i5 on 3.8 because intel has much higher IPC, all of you brainless fanboys need to learn about cpu's
Seriously? The AMD part beats the Intel part in everything except single core performance, yet the Intel part still wins? Talk about bias fanboyism. Not sure if I can trust these sites if they are going to skew results despite the actual numbers. Sure, alot of programs are still geared toward single core, but that is slowly becoming a thing of the past.
Hmm perhaps power consumption (electric bill - especially if computer runs 24/7 and heat generated together with noise needed to cool it down). Second is this processor really octa core or is it 4 double cores "glued" together like it was for long time with amd quad cores (2 dual cores glued together)?
It's ridiculous that people still don't know what a beast of cpu the FX 8350 is. Especially when it comes to gaming, you won't even see any real life difference between an FX8350 and an i7 4770K. The results are always skewed by the single core performance, which is silly in most real life applications.
I honestly have no idea why people, particularly enthusiasts, would choose an i5 over the FX-8350. Look at the benchmarks above.
comments powered by Disqus