CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4670K vs 8350

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

No winner declared

Too close to call

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 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
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 159.66W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,223 vs 1,525 More than 45% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,335 vs 4,338 Around 70% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Significantly better performance per watt 12.94 pt/W vs 5.19 pt/W Around 2.5x better performance per watt
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.8x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 25,519 vs 22,674 Around 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Marginally newer Apr, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 5 months later
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
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
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
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
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,147 vs 5,198.5 More than 95% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 7,735 Around 20% better PassMark score
Better performance per dollar 5.26 pt/$ vs 4.63 pt/$ Around 15% better performance per dollar
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.75 GHz vs 4.53 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.98 GHz vs 4.62 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

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

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i5 4670K
11,544
FX 8350
11,064

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
6,880
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com
The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i5 4670K
25,519
FX 8350
22,674
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ anandtech.com
In Cinebench the AMD chip is only a little over 5 per cent slower, and in X264 there's less than a single per cent difference between them.
FX 8350 | by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 8350
4,338
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ anandtech.com

Passmark

FX 8350
9,134
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net
Looking at the physics score we can see a difference of just under 900 points with the AMD FX-8350 taking the lead with 7325 3DMarks.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Passmark (Single Core)

FX 8350
1,525
Curious about real world scenarios, we decided to drop Furmark and ran 3DMark 11 on the performance preset and took the maximum power consumption during the first GPU test.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Reviews Word on the street

Core i5 4670K  vs FX 8350 

8.0
8.0
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 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
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
XOP
SSE3
FMA3
SSE2
FMA4
EM64T
F16C
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AVX 2.0
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

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
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

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 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclock popularity 57 709
Overclocked clock speed 4.53 GHz 4.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.62 GHz 4.98 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,198.5 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.53 GHz 4.75 GHz

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 12.94 pt/W 5.19 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W
Intel Core i5 4670K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
It is true that Intel's single core power is much better but think about the future and games that will be released, games have become more cpu demanding if you want to play it on ultra is what we want in most cases. maybe in 1 or 2 years games will need 6 or 8 cores and it might be expensive to get intel cpu's. People might not want to spend money on a new cpu to save money on a new graphics card or ram. So youve got to think about the future because games have evolved alot in the past years. Gta 4 come out in 2007 and it was the best visuals when it came out and was more demanding for pc uses. So its not just about now but about what will be released in future. And i don't favour AMD because iv'e been an intel fan for my whole life but it does work out much cheaper in your favour
Enough. AMD peasant. What did i say exactly? i called him a clueless moron for what he is. AMD fucktards can bugger off and shove these 8 cores up their fat hairy ass. New gen gpus will make the cpus even more obsolete than they currently are regarding gaming because of the integrated cpus they will feature in their design. Therefore claiming that you will get better gaming performance because you have more cores in your main cpu is invalid.
A high tier gaming cpu is the i5 4670k. I will be more than fine for 5 years at least with factory settings. Paired up with a good Maxwell card i ll buy when they come out it will be a machine that will last me for years without bottlenecks. I ll just be replacing a gpu once in a while if it is needed but there is no reason to upgrade the other parts. Im not a self-creaming idiot to get obsessed with building rigs and can't wait till i build the next.
Where I live, I picked up the 8350 for $170, not on sale, and got a Gigabyte 970 board for $80. So, there's some wiggle room on that price vs difference analysis.
I think AMD FX 8350... because it's a good CPU if you're on a budget especially the fact it uses 8 cores it's overclock speed is a huge 9.9% of cpu clock it's of more I3 cache more I2 cache per each core and it has a much more better performance per the doller
One core doesn't do so much in the hexacore CPU's because it would require so much power to use them as well as the 4670k has. You have more performance in the i5 because it has 4 powerful and high-performing cores. i5 has 100W less power consumption and it is clearly superior in overall performance in GAMING. AMD obviously takes the win in multitasking.
Games either use 1 or 2 cores (mainthread & second thread), or all cores (mainthread + other tasks spread out over the rest) in most cases. Any game that will leverage a quad-core will usually leverage an eight-core as well. The difference is that games rarely come close to maxing out an entire CPU (single or dual-threaded games will often max out just those cores). When the game is spread out over 8 cores, it doesn't increase performance compared to Intel's 4 cores because those cores aren't being maxed, so the game is still benefiting from the mainthread being run faster (or in really well optimised games, you don't really notice a difference between the CPUs). The only time an FX-8350 would be noticeably better than an i5-4670K is if the game ate up enough CPU power to max out all 4 of the i5-4670Ks cores, and likewise use almost all (or all) of the FX-8350's cores. That is when the 8350 would pull ahead because its maximum theoretical performance is higher... but most of the time games come nowhere close to using that much, and thus still benefit from the mainthread being completed faster (high single-threaded performance).
Because of low power consumption. 8 cores at 1.6GHz uses less power than 4 cores at 3.2GHz. Honestly, the future is more cores. I imagine in a decade we'll have 16-core CPUs running at 3GHz or lower as a standard in our desktops. As we continue to use smaller pipelines, higher clock speeds become less obtainable. Additionally higher clock speeds require exponentially more voltage. It makes more sense to have more cores than higher speeds. The concept behind Bulldozer (and its children) was good, but it was poorly executed. Clearly it's not a bad idea, and we see now that programs that will utilise lots of threads will perform just fine. AMD FX chips fell behind because the architecture itself was really inefficient. Cache latency was atrocious. The shared-resources design caused delays in decoding and process distribution. The floating point calculations were still really poor compared to Intel CPUs. In an attempt to make up for all this, they increased the clock speeds really high (thus destroying the original concept of more cores being a more efficient way to compute). Now they have Jim Keller back (one of the architects behind AMD's 64-bit CPUs that put them ahead of Intel originally), and they're working on a brand new x86 architecture that we'll see in 2016-2017.
No it won't. The FX-8350 will only pull ahead of an i5-4670K in a game that MAXES out an i5-4670K - that is the only time when the extra cores of the FX-8350 come in handy. Because the 4670K does with 4 cores what it takes 7 cores for the FX-8350 to accomplish. If a game comes nowhere close to maxing the 8 threads of the 8350, the i5-4670K will be much faster. If a game does come close to maxing them out, the 8350 will be slightly ahead of the 4670K. But go ahead, call me an Intel fanboy in place of factual debate. Keep throwing your embellished factpinions about how AMD's processors will utterly crush the Intel offerings (when even in the absolute best of situations [also the minority of situations], the FX-8350 is only 16% faster than the 4670K). In actuality I despise Intel and use mostly AMD components, but I also understand that there's more to how things run than the number of cores. There's a lot more to it than merely single and multi-threaded performance. Threads cannot be perfectly distributed in games, and games often do not have insanely high CPU loads (BF4 for instance uses around 65% CPU of an 8350). There is also more about what processes the CPUs are doing, specifically. Intel has much better floating point calculations and lower cache & memory latency.
Games usually use either 1 or 2 cores, or ALL cores. In my experience they're set up to have a mainthread and a secondary thread, OR they have a mainthread and set up secondary tasks to run on as many cores as are available. So theoretically in any situation that would benefit from a quad-core, it would also benefit from an eight-core... but on the flipside, these secondary tasks rarely eat up enough CPU usage to max it. This is why even in multi-threaded games the Intel chips pull ahead; because while there are some things spread over numerous cores, the mainthread is still being run faster on an Intel CPU. Maximum multi-threaded performance isn't as important because very few games are actually going to come anywhere near eating up 100% of an i5 OR an FX-8350. It's only if it were to nearly max out all 8 cores that the FX-8350 would noticeably pull ahead of an i5-4670K. That said, I think the FX-8350 is fine for gaming. In most games I've tested, it comes within 5 FPS of Intel i7-4770K (expect similar results for the i5-4670K). The only games where it falls behind significantly are MMOs (notorious for being inefficient and using only 1-2 cores). In older games (pre-2010ish) that were single-threaded it's still fine because it's still a hell of a lot faster in single-threaded than stuff like the Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Duo (the common CPUs in the late 2000s) Intel still has the best offerings, but if you're on a budget the FX-8350 is a fine way to go. Just up to you if it's worth the cost difference. Where I live the FX-8350 is $200, and a 990FX motherboard is about $120. Whereas an i5-4670K is $260, and a Z87 board (that doesn't suck) is $160. So it's about $100 more to go with an Intel platform... for less than 5 FPS gain in most games. It all boils down to your budget and what applications you'll be using... but for the majority of users an FX-8350 is fine.
It is biased. It is a lie.
Enough. Intel Fanboy.....
Im so much aggree with you Growlith1223, For sur im looking for pieces to build my own computer for my first time :P, but im still always completly getting catch by more cores, im not saying im getting trap, only that I so much love when im seeing that i have so many cores, which in fact , making me feeling like my computer is so powrfull, sorry thats because I was always tolding that more cores is better, but in fact, that completly depend on whats your doing, yes im so much looking at benchmark like friends told me, but still that amd will be much better if your using applications or games ( maybe future... ) that support so many cores or if your using multiple applications , I did say, even if your using multiple heavy applications, im pretty sure that amd will much more handle it than intel would do if watching after the number of somewhat powerfull cores of amd, not saying that amd cores are much powerfull than intel ones, just that im so much curious to see a "complete" benchmark of amd and intel if using "ALL" cores, so that way, we could see a benchmark which tell you completly if the processor is better while using completly all core than the other one, which would make multithreading so much better.... for that point, seeing amd cpu, while never used one because im 17years old so just got a job :P , im pretty sure that amd cpu will completly break down intel scores by getting one so much better because we are simply "FULLY" using all cores...... Briefly, im sure that AMD absolutly excel in multithreading but is also good in gaming , which is somewhat a nice mix for somebody like me, but that intel is somewhat better than amd for "actual" gaming but less for multithreaded usage. im saying "actual" because that only few games are made to use so much cores today, but , if seeing few new games realesing, they are optimized for mores cores, which is probably telling that future gaming will someday be optimized to be able to fully use so many cores, which would so much upgrading "actual" amd gaming scores, which i would be curious if amd would excel much more than intel, if only counting performance and not power-consuption and etc.....
You are somewhat correct. Crysis 3 ran on my Pentium dual core no HT just as good as on the fx 8350. One core at 100% and the other at 80% but they have the same IPC. On my 4670k at 4.7ghz I saw a jump in frame rate albeit nothing noticeable.
I own both and in every benchmark I run intel wins except on the sandra lite benchmark the 8350 had a better integer score or was it floating point. One of the two, anyway I'd be glad to run any benchmark you request and give you real facts and that is that intel almost always wins.
Because consoles have direct access to the hardware and off load most of the work to the GPU. With the release of directx 12 developers will have more access to the hardware and my gtx 680 which is getting old will see a huge performance increase on directx 12 games because of it. Also keep in mind that console games are inferior to PC games and do not require anywhere near the amount power.
BUT. why do the new consoles all come with 8 cores and only 1.6 GHz per core?
One thing I never got on this. Count my ignorance I guess, but now that games are using 8 cores.. AND I KNOW THEY ARE.. I've tested watch dogs on my friends 6350 with the exact setup including motherboard and hard drive. (I built it for him) and mine has the 8350 and my pc outperforms him fps wise on that game. Doesn't the eight core part count for sumthin' up against an i5 or i7?
hey you suck dick. nobody in the right mind would replace their parts every year. also i don't see AMD motherboard or chips break down so easily. My AMD set up amazingly lasted me for 4 years and counting. you suck dick, Aaron.
the fact that everyone can literally see that you're a fanboy of intel makes it no use in trying to argue with you. AMD does what it does best, Intel does what it does best. intel has a better IPC while AMD does not. I'll still choose AMD so long as i can overclock. An Intel processor may be good, but pricing is not. not to mention, there are people who like to build, why should they have to stop for 5 years? "High Tier" that's a little vague, could you give an example of what a "High tier" processor is? i know for sure the i7-4770k isn't high tier. "Only a peasant would choose AMD over intel" guess im a peasant then. Seriously, just stop, The 2 companies are doing what they do best, leave it at that
I now own an FX 8350. Here is what I can tell you. On my g3220 dual core pentium haswell Crysis 3 at the beefiest settings utilized 100% of one core and 80% of the second core and so the CPU did not bottleneck performance. Now lets pretend that Crysis 3 could not utilize more than 2 cores. Having 8 weak cores that CPU usage would have been 100% on both the cores the game supported and so the game would have suffered performance degradation. Most games today do not utilize more than 2 cores and not all games are created equal. Mass Effect 3 for example runs flawlessly on my 4670k with 60-70% CPU utilization with only 1 core enabled. To put it simply the only important thing in gaming performance will be how powerful the cores the game utilizes are if all your other hardware is the same. One AMD core is about half of as powerful as an Intel Core. My FX 8350 @ 4.5ghz scores 102 on single core power using cinebench r15. The 4670k @ 4.7ghz scores 169. Intel will always provide the better performance but this can be unnoticeable to most gamer's depending on the game. 7-14 fps loss on 120+ fps is not something you will even notice but if you video card is already struggling with a game the minimum FPS dip might be more noticeable then. So why would you buy AMD? There is a big difference between multithreaded performance and multitasking ability that people do not seem to understand very well. For example I use the FX 8350 to output 3 virtual machines that my kids use to play games with. I have 3 xbox wireless adapters that are routed to the three different virtual machines and so BAM, 3 free gaming PC's for the price of one and cheaper than Intel. Most of the games they play on average utilize 2 cores. Because I am a nerd I tested the performance of these games on my 4670k, 3770k and FX to see if my theory that the FX would perform better was right and it was. Why? Because 6 dedicated cores for 3 games plus 4 OS's requires multitasking abilities which is where having 8 cores gave the FX the edge. The 4670k had all cores used for just 2 VM's and the third just exceeded its multitasking ability and maxed out all cores. Lego Marvel super heroes uses 1 core at 100% and 1 at 25-35%. the 3770k performed nearly as bad as the 4670k since hyperthreading increases multithreaded performance and not multitasking ability. I did not run a benchmark I just merely played all 3 games at the same time and there was considerable framerate chop and consistent lockups for a few seconds before the game resumed. If you need multithreaded performance for 24/7 or constant use keep in mind that at full load the FX will draw more power than the the 4670k for nearly the same multithreaded performance and that will eventually eat up the original savings and even cost you more over time. Summary - Intel will always be better for gaming although depending on the game and your other hardware it might not even be noticeable. Summary - Multithreaded performance is not the same as multitasking ability. Summary - AMD is cheaper (got my fx for 160 and my 990fxa-ud3 for 120) and if every dollar matters to you more than absolute performance noticeable or not AMD is the way to go. Summary - Constant max load usage will draw more power on the FX and will eventually cost more than the initial savings. Other thoughts - Brand loyalty aside vanity matters to some. Would you rather have the fancy nice looking car that can drive you to work and back the same way a cheap old toyota tercel can? Some people buy intel just cause they want the "best" even though it can do the same job. I would make a purchase based on whether it can get the job done and since this is all very situational there is no simple choice, no cookie cutter answer that can apply to everyone. This is the first time I have ever posted a review, if we can even consider this a review, I hope it helps the lot of you that are always stuck on which to buy or whether it will work for what you need. If you have any questions feel free to ask and if you have any experiments you want me to run to compare performance on a 3770k, 4670k or FX 8350 let me know.
It makes no sense replacing parts every year and getting low-end every time. Just pay up front for the high tier and retire from building for 5 years. It is better that way.
Factor in quality motherboard prices as well and AMD becomes a much more palatable bargain option for gamers who'll be replacing parts every year anyway...
Have fan with your 8 cores. I ll still play with an i5 and a GTX800 Maxwell. Its ARM will defeat any purpose of the 8 cores.
If i where in America I'd take a trip to the nearest MicroCentre and buy an i7 4770K which is great for graphics and gaming. But I'm in england, so ll have to put up with it.
comments powered by Disqus