Winner
Intel Core i5 4670K
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4670K based on its .
See full details| | Intel Core i5 4670K vs AMD FX 8350 |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms |
| | Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W | | Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,216 |
by Tech RadarSurely the 100MHz increments provided by the multiplier are good enough for everything bar bragging rights?
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Higher clock speed 4 GHz |
| | Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz | | More cores 8 |
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)It's impressive that AMD has managed to close the performance gap this much in the multi-threading stakes.
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Core i5 4670K 7.9 FX 8350 7.8 | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Core i5 4670K 9.7 FX 8350 8.0 | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core) | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Core i5 4670K 8.5 FX 8350 9.9 | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Core i5 4670K 7.1 FX 8350 7.4 | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
| Core i5 4670K 8.6 FX 8350 8.0 | |
Winner |
Intel Core i5 4670KCPUBoss Winner | | |
| |||||||
| 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 | 2,216 | 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 | 12.56 pt/W | vs | 5.05 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 $/year | 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Slightly better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 25,519 | vs | 22,674 | Around 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| Marginally newer | Apr, 2013 | vs | Oct, 2012 | Release date 5 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.4 GHz | Around 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 3.8 GHz | More than 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| More l3 cache | 8 MB | vs | 6 MB | Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 10,147 | vs | 5,198.5 | More than 95% better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Better PassMark score | 9,134 | vs | 7,696 | Around 20% better PassMark score | |||
| Better performance per dollar | 5.19 pt/$ | vs | 4.49 pt/$ | More than 15% better performance per dollar | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.99 GHz | vs | 4.6 GHz | Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
FX 8350 | by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)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 Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)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)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.
| Core i5 4670K | vs | FX 8350 | ||
| 8.0 | 8.0 | Core i5 4670K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | 4.51 GHz | 4.7 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 | 4.7 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 | 12.56 pt/W | 5.05 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 68.25W | 159.66W | |
| Intel Core i5 4670K | AMD FX 8350 |
| VS | |
| $177 | $325 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i7 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $330 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i7 3770K | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $143 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs 8320 | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $230 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 3570K | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $160 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs A10 7850K | ||
| VS | |
| $235 | $325 | |
| Intel Core i5 4670K vs i7 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $235 | $240 | |
| Intel Core i5 4670K vs 4690K | ||
| VS | |
| $325 | $253 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | $161 | |
| Intel Core i3 3110M vs N3530 | ||
| VS | |
| $325 | $340 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | $97 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| Intel Core i3 3217U vs Celeron N2830 | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| AMD A10 5750M vs Intel Core i7 4700MQ | ||
| VS | |
| Samsung Exynos 5 Octa vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 | ||