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

Performance

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

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

9.1

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 4670K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4670K  based on its 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!
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
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,335 vs 4,338 Around 70% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 159.66W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Much better performance per watt 11.84 pt/W vs 5.84 pt/W More than 2x better performance per watt
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit score 25,519 vs 22,674 Around 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
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
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
Much higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.8 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
Significantly higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Much better PassMark score 9,134 vs 7,665 Around 20% better PassMark score
Much better performance per dollar 8.31 pt/$ vs 5.18 pt/$ More than 60% better performance per dollar
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
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 overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.55 GHz Around 95% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.73 GHz vs 4.48 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)

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

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
11,554
FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
2,193

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
11,573
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
12,725
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i5 4670K
12,725
FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350
9,134

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350
1,525

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

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
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 11.84 pt/W 5.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W

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 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 57 709
Overclocked clock speed 4.48 GHz 4.73 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 4.73 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
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
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

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=1780&cmp%5B%5D=1921
Assuming identical architecture yes. But the architecture of Bulldozer and its children (Piledriver, Steamroller) is garbage. An FX-8350 is better than an FX-4300, no arguments. But it's not better than an i5-4670K because the i5's cores are better by a landslide. When all eight of the FX-8350's cores are used to its fullest, it's <20% better than the i5-4670K. So naturally in any situation that doesn't make use of that many, the i5-4670K wins out handily.
First: I'm NOT A FAN BOY. I look on facts not some intel or AMD religion type of things (bullshit). To all nut jobs out there, this two CPU-s have their advantages and disadvantages. If you want to save a buck AND electricity in your country is cheap go for AMD. If you want to save a buck in long run AND electricity in your country is expensive pay more and go for intel. Comparison: - FX 8350 Its cheaper (A LOT at least in my country) -at @4.5ghz FX compared to i5 4690k @4.5ghz (FX) consumes somewhere around 75w more ( ITS TESTED AND CHECKED) - FX has much lower temperatures because it has better heat dispersion (many people mistake heat dispersion=power consumption) so you save money buying cooler, you buy 25 bucks cooler and you can go 4.5ghz no problem with idle 32c stress 47c when the i5 4690k at 4.5ghz hits sometimes even 91c! - in some games performance is comparable with i5 ( its like +2/3fps for intel) but sometimes when games are strictly core intensive you can get even (lets say) 20fps more on i5, but still the FX will run games wery smooth. - In most cases the mobo for overclocking purposes (AM3+) is little cheaper than 1150 socket. - AM3+ mobos (lower price and mid range) have pcie 2.0 x 16, only the formula v and sabertooth have pcie 3.0 controller from what i remember and these mobos are expensive. In 1150 (all prices segment) pcie 3.0 is pretty much a standard. The difference between pcie 2.0 and 3.0 is sometimes none and in most cases 1/3 fps. This is all i can think of at the moment. At the end i want you to wrap your mind around that you will be very happy with fx or i5, the "next gen" consoles are running fx type chips so dont expect that the pc game ports will be CRUSHING fx and only intel will run these games. If you want to build a "maxing everything out pc" for next lets say 2/3 years focus on the GPU not cpu (if you don't have the money to buy expensive cpu and gpu). The fx 8350 @4.5ghz in pair with hd7970/r9 280x/380x/ will handle 99% of the games maxed out 1080p smooth-y (and the i5 will probably do it even better) but please don't say - "well if you buy 8350 and run it for 15 years 24/7 overclocked the cost of energy will be this and that"... buddy in 15 years this pc will be scrapped. Some people replace parts after 1 year, some after 3 years, and some when the games frame rate is next to non-playable.
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
AMD WINS !!!!!! FULL STOP xD
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.
comments powered by Disqus