CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4670K vs 8350


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)


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

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


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

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!

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
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 2,214 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
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per watt 12.35 pt/W vs 4.96 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
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Slightly 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 7,689 Around 20% better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.99 GHz vs 4.6 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
FX 8350

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ anandtech.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 8350
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ anandtech.com


FX 8350
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (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
Is hyperthreaded No No


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes


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
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s


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


Overclock popularity 57 709
Overclocked clock speed 4.51 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.6 GHz 4.99 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,198.5 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.51 GHz 4.69 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 12.35 pt/W 4.96 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W
Intel Core i5 4670K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.
Are you retarded? that thing is a quad core clocked at 3.8GHz. It would be strange if it wouldn't perform well. Also what part of "$50" you didn't catch? That thing starts at 100 euro in my place which is even higher than $100.
So true running a10-5800K(IGPU disabled) with R9 280, I see no hiccup and everything is so smooth as first hit of blunt. Boys do real tests and wait till you grow up...
I don't understand your argument at all. Your saying a AMD chip that gets 60fps+ in most games today is not for gaming? Confused. I picked up i5 4670k for now as I plan on upgrading to the i7 next month. But AMD starting to shine and I will not be hypocritical towards AMD.
There wont be any need for a more powerful cpu any time soon. Just because a game can utilize more than 4 cores doesn't mean there will be a great difference in fps. You ll gain 2 fps at your best? the gpu is what matters.
what a fucking bullshit rating AMD 8350 shits on overpriced Intel all day
bull shit,buying intel does make ur electricity bill go lower? are you gonna say intel is the one gonna save your electric bill? please bring ur sense before use ur little finger type those Bull Shit**
Attack mean improve,is good to amd but bad for attacker ^^
reality is cruel...what if your love one is murderer?u wont believe it,i believe? this occur to all,Include YOU!
But then again the AMD is around half the price so...
Unfortunelly not. Tech changes so fast, sooner, any quad core will be obsolete.
actually the AMD win because of the over clock ...
well guys the answer to that is if you want a killer gaming exp. get intel i7 4770 but if you also want a gaming pc with a budget get amd fx 8350 because amd is a really really good processor with a very cheap price. but iif money isnt your prob.. go to intel i7 4770 bro
Well said lawrence.... So long as I myself have a decent GPU I don't care if its amd or Intel. I am a amd fan boy but I do admit Intel is faster. But both CPU without a a decent GPU are crap at gaming.
That's not the argument...if games start using 8 cores, it doesn't mean that a quad-core won't be able to run it. On the other hand, i believe that the FX is better than the 4670K because of 3 simple facts: -The cost of the CPU. The FX is cheaper than the i5, yet it's somehow similar to an i7(4 cores - 8 threads) -The cost of the platform. A good OC mobo(Sabertooth 990FX/ M5A99FX EVO R2.0) for the FX is still cheaper than a Z87/Z97 OC board. -The performance overall. The FX is able to keep a good 60+FPS framerate, while recording or streaming(in multicore games). It's kinda hard to stream BF4 for example with an i5. It will stutter and lag because the game will be redirected to 2 cores, while the stream software will use the other two. In the end...both CPUs are good at what they do, but what I want to underline, is that you can't go wrong with any of them. Stop being fanboys and throwing knives at AMD, and vice-versa. I just got an FX 8350 for the sake of testing, and I have failed yet to see a game that is unplayable at 1080p with an R9 280x
Yes this is bullshit i own 4670k but i feel 8350 is better at Heavier stuff
I wouldn't personally put an 8350 on a 970 motherboard except for the Gigabyta GA-970-UD3P. It's the only one with 8+2 power phase design AFAIK, so it can actually support an 8350 well and even OC it decently. Most of the 970 boards can potentially throttle the FX-8350 on heavy load even at stock because the 8350 has an "actual" TDP of about 140W if you force the clock speed to remain at 4GHz
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.
comments powered by Disqus