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
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 2,243 vs 1,525 More than 45% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,335 vs 4,319 Around 70% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Significantly better performance per watt 13.19 pt/W vs 5.31 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
Slightly better cinebench r10 32Bit score 25,519 vs 23,437 Around 10% 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 7,804 More than 15% better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.98 GHz vs 4.63 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
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
FX 8350
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
Core i5 4670K FX 8350 @ anandtech.com


FX 8350
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
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 

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 vitualization 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 4.54 GHz 4.74 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.63 GHz 4.98 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,198.5 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.54 GHz 4.74 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 13.19 pt/W 5.31 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.
For me it's about a machine that will run apps at reasonable speed. Not Intel or AMD. More like Intel AND AMD. Whichever can do the job. I Just put up an FX 8350 to replace an i7 920. Set a modest overclock, (4.35 ghz), bench marked it, ran cad and other rendering apps. The FX 8350 is better than I expected especially given all the bad press. Not quite up to a 3770k at 4.2 ghz but close enough to be respectable. Someone earlier in this discussion referred to an FX 8350 as an "I-6" equivalent, between the I-5 and I-7. From what I've seen, that's about it.
Soldier, you have not compared the Athlon 64 to a Pentium 4.
And for the f*** sake, how many computers do you have turned on 24/7? Really your arguments are childish. I own both an intel 4670K build, and a FX 8350 one. Both have GTX 660s Ti. I had two of them in SLI, with the FX, and because my brother needed it for his new rig, i gave him one card until he buys a new one. We are gamers. Not proffesional 24/7 ones, but we enjoy playing together. We play BF4, LoL, World of Tanks(notorious for its garbage multi-core support), and there are not big differences in FPS whatsoever. Yeah i agree, the i5 gets 3-4 FPS more, but WTF? We're talking here about 75+FPS. Do we notice them? No! Am I a AMD fanboy? No! I love Intel chips. They're very good, and that integrated graphics might come in handy when you have problems with the dedicated GPU. What I do not like about Intel is the fact that upgrades are kinda' dead. I mean you could upgrade from Sandy to Ivy, but for Haswell you need new mobo. Rumors say that, although Broadwell is going to be on LGA1150, you will still need a new mobo with one of the new chipsets(Z97,H97,B95 etc). Another fact is, that games are GPU dependent. Neither of these 2 CPUs are going to bottleneck on 1080p(i mean bottleneck until games become unplayable)
in almost every game the cpu is not the bottle neck please stop being such a nooooooob
You are completely out of you're element here. I know how RAM works - the problem is, you don't seem to know anything about 3D animation or rendering. Pre-render, 3D applications buffer the lighting and particle calculations for the scene in memory. My scenes are extremely large, so the buffered data falls between 12-24GB. This gives the computer with less ram a disadvantage, because it has to buffer to the HDD. Even with this disadvantage, the total render time for the machine with the FX-8350 is still 10% less. You also don't seem to understand intel chips. ALL i7 chips have hyperthreading, that means the 3770 AND the 3770k BOTH have hyperthreading. The K is just a tweak to the 3770 to make manual overclocking easier. The problem with hyperthreading cores is while they are "logical" cores to the OS, they aren't ACTUAL cores, and therefore don't behave like 8 actual cores when all of them are under full load. The AMD has 8 ACTUAL cores - which makes the difference in rendering applications. You can argue all you like, but it sounds like I understand processor architecture better than you do - and I've actually run both processors in real life. You can say the i7 3770 (which is more powerful than the i5 in this article) is faster all you want - but I know from experience that it's not.
RAM amount says nothing about speed. 24GB and 12GB of RAM is about capacity not speed.....infact, 24GB of RAM can be slower than 12GB of RAM since it's the same channels with the same bandwidth. larger sticks also have more memory space to go through, which hurts latency somewhat. If you're using 10GB/s RAM, it'll take a little over a second to read through 12GB of RAM. If you're using 10GB/s of 24GB RAM, you're going to take over 2 seconds to read all that RAM, regardless of CPU speed. And that 10GB/s applies to all the ram, not just each half of a pair. 2 sticks rated at 10GB/s.....will only achieve 10GB/s. 4 sticks rated 10GB/s, will only acheive 10GB/s. Let's say a CPU's memory controller only supports 30GB/s.....that's all you're going to get no matter the speed of your RAM. Most RAM doesn't even come close to this. And there's a difference between a 3770 and a 3770k....the K version has hyperthreading that does 8 threads instead of 4.
I'm not over-clocking the 8350, so that's totally irrelevant. Not sure where you're getting the fiction that the 8350 is "FPU crippled", but as far as I can tell from studying the processor architecture, you're just making that up. I actually own both the 3770 and the 8350, and 3770 is in a better rig (it has 2-1 ram advantage which means it takes less time to buffer each render). Running CPU ONLY rendering, the 8350 outperforms the 3770 by 10%. You can believe whatever you want, but I ACTUALLY OWN BOTH and have hundreds of hours of rendering time proving that the 8350 performs better.
the 8350 is FPU crippled, which is what 3d rendering heavily relies on. all that integer means nothing if the FPU can't keep up. If you're rendering on the GPU, then obviously CPU won't really matter. even then, if they were par, the energy savings of the intel more than makes up for the extra cost. If I want to overclock an 8350 decently, I'd need a 140w+ motherboard $80 minimum for cheapest brand, a $60 liquid cooler, and a $60-$120 600w PSU. that all adds to cost. meanwhile if I want to overclock an intel 4x, all I need is a $40 motherboard, a $40 450-500w PSU (even less depending on GPU), and I wouldn't even need anything more than a $20 evo heatsink. combine all those cost differences with price savings, and the Intel comes out not only cheaper, but also better performing with better overclocking potential.
Actually a lot of games use 6 cores nowaydays, and some games are just starting to use the full eight cores a lot of amd fx cpus have.
Fake. Intel"s site
Wut? Athlon and phenoms outperformed intels processors ans that wasnt 1999 wtf
It is irrelevant since you'll fry your motherboard and or cpu by running a non server pu 24/7 for 2 years
I find it funny that you guys take skngle core performance so serious. Nowdays, multi threaded performance is much more important. Also, reasons to consider the i5 are 2xsingle core benchmarks. The 8350 doesnt get the multi threaded scores a sa reason, why? Where did they go? Why onky better overclocked score? You guys keep denieing that your unbiased, but you damn are, beeing sponsored by intel without beeing advertised should be illegal and you guys spreading ridicouless information should be aswell
What does that have to do with anything vivek said?
I like seeing the Intel fanboys attack the AMD fanboys.
Intel certainly has better single core performance, which is good for older software, most current software, and future software will be multi core dependent, why in the world would you put such a premium on single core and 32 bit performance?
Im tired of the AMD fanboys who always cry for biased score either it is about INTEL VS AMD or NVIDIA VS AMD. Just accept that AMD comes second.
You are a clueless moron.
Energy cost is basically irrelevant unless this is for an always on server running at 100% load.
The FX core is a real core, it just shares certain resources [like cache] with a 'partner' core. So every 2 cores share one common cache, etc. The cores are still able to run independent calculations / threads in about 90% of cases - basically in nearly all cases used by current applications [including games]. This is completely different from hyper-threading - which is really just one core addressed as two.
I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. Or, you're being sarcastic.
f**k Single Core im going with fx 8350 and overclocking to 5ghz
7670? Lier. I7 3770 will always be better rendering.
The fact that the most important thing for them is single-core performance is just biased. If they want to make it that way, they should be showing test results on different things like video editing and gaming. Obviously, Intel will win in gaming because there isn't any game (as far as I know) that uses 8 cores. Most games use 4 at most. By the way, I own the i5 because I'm using it for gaming and wanted something efficient, and I don't plan to do anything like video editing.
The upgrade is worth it for those coming from an Amd processor like I was. Noticed a major difference going from an Amd Phenom II x4 965 3.4ghz to an I5 4670k 3.4ghz. The Amd Processor is obviously 5-6 years old now, so it's probably not a fair comparison. However on my Amd processor it would not shut down the computer properly most of the time and I would have to hold down the shut down button because Amd Phenom wouldn't shut down fully. I have yet to do that with my Intel processor. Was my Amd Processor malfunctioning?
comments powered by Disqus