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 performance and single-core performance.

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
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm 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 2,204 vs 1,525 Around 45% better PassMark (Single 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 11.96 pt/W vs 4.83 pt/W Around 2.5x better performance per watt
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,335 vs 4,338 Around 70% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core 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
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.8 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 20% higher 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
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.55 GHz Around 95% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better PassMark score 9,134 vs 7,665 Around 20% better PassMark score
Slightly better 3DMark11 physics score 6,880 vs 6,830 Almost the same
Better performance per dollar 5.96 pt/$ vs 5.23 pt/$ Around 15% better performance per dollar
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.71 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 (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core) Data courtesy PassMark

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


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
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 11.96 pt/W 4.83 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W


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


Overclock popularity 57 709
Overclocked clock speed 4.48 GHz 4.71 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 4.71 GHz

integrated graphics

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
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


Showing 25 comments.
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
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.
Well considering that my 8350, which is about $44 cheaper than your 4670k, is only a little less powerful than your 4670K in single core performance and again in multicore tasks, plus is easily overclocked by about 20% kind of makes any point you have pretty invalidated opinion saying that AMD is a bad choice. Especially if you're on a tight budget where that $44 dollars could help you on the road to get a better graphics card to go with it which will give a huge bonus in game performance compared to a better CPU. And games will always need a CPU, something to run the basic functions of the program which in many cases can be very, very intensive and having the workload spread across a multitude of cores would only be beneficial. All this said with it in mind that I'm switching to a 4790K due to my personal need for a better CPU for my work. This 8350 has served perfectly well for gaming and I wouldn't be upgrading if it wasn't for work.
4 cores clocked at 3.4GHz is more decent than it needs in order to play games. You choose to reply only for a fraction of what i said. Nvidia said their gpus are going to feature ARM integrated microprocessors which was supposed to defeat the purpose of an overkill above 4 cores cpu. They didn't give us that this year. They probably save it for next year. As far as things go, my 4670k works wonders. I don't need more power. Certainly not a shit AMD.
You do know that more and more games are making their way to utilize multi-core CPU's due to the release of the new 8-core consoles right? And considering that I made my best friend's computer from a ASUS Sabertooth Motherboard, a 4790K, and a 780 ti then made mine with a Asus Sabertooth with a 8350 and recently made the jump to a GTX 970 and we get within 15 FPS of one another in BF4, Hardline, Evolve, Arma 3, Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, MGS Ground Zeroes and AC Unity I think that your comment in made in ignorant Fanboy-ism. Oh, and I've been getting the better FPS out of the two of us thanks to my superior graphics card. The CPU hardly makes a difference in 9/10 gaming situations so long as you have a half decent one. I want to do another test with him though to see how we match up now that he got a gtx 970 as well and I recently overlocked my 8350 to 4.9 Ghz.
actually games rely on threads not cores of course hyper threading is not as effective as physical cores but amd has inferior architecture anyway ps i own an a10 and it is awesome on single threaded hardware
I know these are old comments so I apologize for taking so long getting back to them, and i certainly appreciate your reply which is both strong and assertive without being defamatory and rude like another user on this thread (cough..cough yucatan). My point in asserting that AMD is a great bargain alternative stands. For system builder/gamers who cannot afford to leap into an Intel-based system, starting with an AMD board and one of AMD's lower cost processors is always a wise move. Moving up to better hardware gradually is done more often than beginning with an exclusively top-tier build. For the most part, Intel's typically superior single-core performance isn't always worth the price premium when assembling a medium-duty gaming rig. Admittedly, with current pricing in the CPU market, I've been steering people towards Intel's i3-4370 instead of AMD's Kaveri (they've blundered rather badly in the pricing of those chips) or even FX. That being said, even in top tier builds, in my experience building well over 30 rigs, people with the money for top tier equipment generally have the money to keep up and are obsessed with always having the best. In my line of work, we refer to them as 'customers with more dollars than sense' but admittedly their repeat business is always appreciated. I get where you're coming from and am not refuting your point though. When it comes down to spending my own money I never chase yearly upgrades, clearly neither do you, but that doesn't affect the reality that people do it.
A lot of people change out parts very frequently so your assertions both related to technology and your ignorant opinion of me are both invalid. As for AMD parts, I use an AMD 970 mobo and FX-8350, both of which have lasted me a considerable amount of time. I never spoke down about AMD products and never will. I only assert tech facts and applicable numbers. 7 month old comment or not, I've only just seen it and flagged it for your unnecessary personal attack. Learn to read and comprehend before you speak again.
O.M.G look at the date. That time everybody thought that GTX900 line would be named GTX800. Nobody knew Nvidia would skip GTX8xx for desktop.
Did you bother to check the date this comment was made? nahh you just barge in and write your bull. The time i wrote this Nvidia had not announced yet that they are skipping the GTX800 name line and going straight to GTX900. I obviously meant GTX900 Maxwell.
Well no , Battlefield 3 My Rommate beats me with his i5 and I beat him in battlefield 4 by about 5fps average he has a Superclocked gtx 970 and I have a stock 970 now I have gtx 970 SLI :), its not much but still.He plays Arma II , I dont but its a ok game , and I beat him with 20fps+ wich is amazing , It doesnt matter for me because I dont play arma but its nice to know what the cpu can do , if you unpark all 8 cores in battlefield 4 in your config file you will see a huge fps boost,I was so amazed , lol THere was a guy who wrote me that he plyas battlefield 4 ultra 1080p 60fps with a fx 8150 and a gtx 650ti boost, I thought it was a troll or just a show off noob , but I checked his video on his channel out , and boom, he has a link to a vid that shows you how to unpark them!From 70fps average Ultra 4k with gtx 970 sli , to 94 fps average 4k Ultra with no dips unlike with the parked cores, sometims times to mid 50s. but now , no it works perfect, I ran into a few texture loading issues sometimes tho.. Check it out on YT , works for AMD only , srry
800 maxwell , I dont know what gpu you have or in what world you live in but I have a fx 8350 and gtx 970 SLI MAXWELL, have a good one.
So you're running a laptop? then you have a dual core i5 and that is even lower clocked as a normal i3... and CPUboss is saying this http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4200U-vs-Intel-Core-i3-4130
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.
comments powered by Disqus