CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4670K 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 Face detection and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Overall Performance and TDP


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Overall Performance and Price


CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Intel Core i5 4670K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4670K  based on its single-core performance and power consumption.

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!

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
Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 159.66W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better geekbench 3 single core score 3,569 vs 2,193 Around 65% better geekbench 3 single core score
Much better performance per watt 11.57 pt/W vs 4.8 pt/W Around 2.5x better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.8x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,335 vs 4,338 Around 70% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Newer Apr, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 5 months later
Slightly better cinebench r10 32Bit score 25,519 vs 22,674 Around 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
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
Significantly higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.8 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,147 vs 5,198.5 More than 95% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
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 threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.55 GHz Around 95% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.72 GHz vs 4.48 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 7,665 Around 20% better PassMark score
Slightly better performance per dollar 5.84 pt/$ vs 5.06 pt/$ More than 15% better performance per dollar

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4670K vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
4,930,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 8350

Reviews Word on the street

Core i5 4670K  vs FX 8350 

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


Core i5 4670K  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 Yes 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 11.57 pt/W 4.8 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W


Core i5 4670K  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


Overclock popularity 57 709
Overclocked clock speed 4.48 GHz 4.72 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.55 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,198.5 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.48 GHz 4.72 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 4670K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.
find something older to reply to. You can do it moron.
makes no difference in gaming. All you need is a gtx 970.
When I bought my i5 4670K about 2 years ago, the difference was only about 30us..., I bought for 205us and I sold the FX 8350 for 149us and the AM3+ motherboard for 85us on eBay auctions. I haven't been lucky at all with AMD hardwares. Just about 3 month ago, I won an auction for a Brand New R9 390 which I had to return after 1 month of usage. Everything was running for 5 minutes and then shutdown. As they couldn't solve the issue and didn't have any other left, they refund me the money. Now , I'm back to my NVIDIA GTX 660 Ti SLI and I have no problem with my rig. That's why this former AMD owner and Current Intel owner is never EVER going back to AMD.
In almost every new game you'll use more then 3 cores, and though the 4670 is a good chip, it isn't as good as the 8350 in total ability!
True, but the bottom line is 8 cores usually wins out over 4 cores! What your specific needs are are not what this evaluation by CPU boss was supposed to be about! Get rid of energy use, which shouldn't be part of the evaluation, and there is no doubt the 8350 wins! Now put the 8350 vs a I7 and that's a different story!
No one says the 4670 isn't good, its just simple basic computing, 8 cores win over 4 in high tasking!
What are you, 6, grow up!
Yea I got feedback, if you're going to put so much weight on elec. cost(who cares), which with single core benchmark is the only advantage the intel has, you might as well be working for them!
Then you didn't shop very well, they have new 8350's on ebay w 1 TB and 16gb for $525.! Best you'll find a new 4670 will be hundreds more!
Maybe that rant would work with someone who's never owned a computer, but not on anyone with no favorite! The difference when you shop for a 4670 vs a 8350 is about $300, that's why this current intel owner is going to buy a 8350 in my new computer!
So the FX wins on just about everything but power consumption, and date of release, but intel the winner,,,,,,,wow, was this written by a Intel employee! I currently have intel, but my new computer will be a 8350, no doubt! I'm not into profiting intel!
i got my i5 for the same price as the AMD was, but i was still unsure which was really best for a while as its hard to really judge from the "reasons to choose" each card
i thought you were not a gamer, but whatever. witcher 3,dying light, and battlefield 4 all use 6-8 cores
dx12 games can finally use all the cores and amd can shine
absolutely no, there is no game using more than 4 cores so 4 i5 cores will be WAYYYYYY better than 8 amd cores, also the rest of the amd's 4 cores will be useless and will have worst single-core performance
That's true!! AMD power consumption is way too high compared to Intel, Especially the AMD CPUs. I had a FX 8350 which power usage is about 150W /h (too much for a CPU. I changed my Board and got me a i5 4670k w/ my 660ti sli + 16GB RAM...., I have same performance and about 100w less power consumption per hour. AMD, YOU SUCK!!
intel processors are not so much better than AMD....the little advantage in performance does not worth the price....
my 4670k is all i need and much more than that. I wont be replacing it soon. When it is time for a replacement, i ll buy an entirely new pc. In 5 years from now.
Lol have fun replacing your mobo everytime you "upgrade" an intel. AMD 8350 going strong, and using the same mobo from 3 years ago when I had a 1090t. AMD is amazing at gaming and multi core performance. Intel is overpriced. I save money with AMD cpu's and invest in the GPU where it makes a difference. "AMD Peasant"? yeah ok, Intel slave
You realize that you'll end up paying about the same once a year is over and you factory in the energy cost right?
It is also the consumption advantage over any AMD. Intel cpus are always some steps ahead of AMD regarding technology and efficiency this is why i prefer them. Im enthusiastic, whenever i buy something i always make sure for it to be the most technologically advanced in the market at the current time. Unlike AMD who releases new stuff every 2/3 years Intel innovates all the time. I don't know about you, but in my place the cpu you mentioned comes for about the same price as the 4670k. In stock settings the i5 makes as much as 13,6 GHz in total. No game needs more than that. Im fine for the next 5 years. Integrated cpus featured in graphics cards that are bound to be released at some time will also assist the main cpu and extend future proofness. When i say im about to get 5 years of quality time with my i5 im not exaggerating. Unless some huge impact in the market is made and my equation is scrapped. Unless they jump from 14nm manufacture process to 2nm over a year or something and the demands rise accordingly (i doubt this would happen) i won't have any problem.
Well considering that my 8350, which is about $44 cheaper than your 4670k, is only a little less powerful than your 4670K in single core performance and again in multicore tasks, plus is easily overclocked by about 20% kind of makes any point you have pretty invalidated opinion saying that AMD is a bad choice. Especially if you're on a tight budget where that $44 dollars could help you on the road to get a better graphics card to go with it which will give a huge bonus in game performance compared to a better CPU. And games will always need a CPU, something to run the basic functions of the program which in many cases can be very, very intensive and having the workload spread across a multitude of cores would only be beneficial. All this said with it in mind that I'm switching to a 4790K due to my personal need for a better CPU for my work. This 8350 has served perfectly well for gaming and I wouldn't be upgrading if it wasn't for work.
4 cores clocked at 3.4GHz is more decent than it needs in order to play games. You choose to reply only for a fraction of what i said. Nvidia said their gpus are going to feature ARM integrated microprocessors which was supposed to defeat the purpose of an overkill above 4 cores cpu. They didn't give us that this year. They probably save it for next year. As far as things go, my 4670k works wonders. I don't need more power. Certainly not a shit AMD.
You do know that more and more games are making their way to utilize multi-core CPU's due to the release of the new 8-core consoles right? And considering that I made my best friend's computer from a ASUS Sabertooth Motherboard, a 4790K, and a 780 ti then made mine with a Asus Sabertooth with a 8350 and recently made the jump to a GTX 970 and we get within 15 FPS of one another in BF4, Hardline, Evolve, Arma 3, Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, MGS Ground Zeroes and AC Unity I think that your comment in made in ignorant Fanboy-ism. Oh, and I've been getting the better FPS out of the two of us thanks to my superior graphics card. The CPU hardly makes a difference in 9/10 gaming situations so long as you have a half decent one. I want to do another test with him though to see how we match up now that he got a gtx 970 as well and I recently overlocked my 8350 to 4.9 Ghz.
comments powered by Disqus