CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4670K vs 6350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core i5 4670K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4670K  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

Intel Core i5 4670K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 4670K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4670K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4670K

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
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,210 vs 1,511 More than 45% better PassMark (Single core) score
Lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 101.56W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,335 vs 4,302 More than 70% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better performance per watt 12.22 pt/W vs 6.54 pt/W More than 85% better performance per watt
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 12,728 vs 9,528 Around 35% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Better PassMark (Overclocked) score 5,198.5 vs 3,626.2 Around 45% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 25,519 vs 18,021 More than 40% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1.33 MB/core Around 15% more l3 cache per core
Lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 30.11 $/year Around 35% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 6350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6350

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 1 MB 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.8 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
Higher clock speed 3.9 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
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
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 6 vs 4 2 more threads
Better performance per dollar 8.54 pt/$ vs 5.69 pt/$ Around 50% better performance per dollar
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.89 GHz vs 4.54 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4670K vs FX 6350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i5 4670K
11,574
FX 6350
8,185

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 6350
6,620
Core i5 4670K FX 6350 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i5 4670K
25,519
FX 6350
18,021
Core i5 4670K FX 6350 @ anandtech.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 6350
4,302
Core i5 4670K FX 6350 @ anandtech.com

Passmark

FX 6350
7,379
Core i5 4670K FX 6350 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

FX 6350
1,511

Reviews Word on the street

Core i5 4670K  vs FX 6350 

8.0
7.0
But the 4670K has the same 3.4GHz baseclock and 3.8GHz Turbo as the old 3570K, with the same quad-core layout, and 6MB of Intel Smart Cache.
Core i5 4670K

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4670K  vs
FX 6350 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 3.9 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Hexa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
MMX
AVX 1.1
SSE
SSE4.2
AMD64
AVX
XOP
SSE3
CLMUL
FMA3
SSE2
FMA4
EM64T
F16C
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
ABM
SSE4a
AVX 2.0
AES
TBM
CVT16
AMD-V
BMI1
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 84W 125W
Annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year 30.11 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year 109.5 $/year
Performance per watt 12.22 pt/W 6.54 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 101.56W

details

Core i5 4670K  vs
FX 6350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 6
L2 cache 1 MB 6 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 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclock popularity 57 3
Overclocked clock speed 4.5 GHz 4.66 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.54 GHz 4.89 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,198.5 3,626.2
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.5 GHz 4.66 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 1,200 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 4670K
Report a correction
AMD FX 6350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus