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!

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
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD FX 8350 vs the Intel Core i5 4670K.

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

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350

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
FX 8350

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4670K
FX 8350


Core i5 4670K
FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350

Reviews Word on the street

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 11.19 pt/W 5.72 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
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 61°C


Overclock popularity 57 709
Overclocked clock speed 4.48 GHz 4.69 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 4.69 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.
and somebody might rape your ass if you don't watch that tone.
And three years later, Ryzen rapes your ass
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
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.
comments powered by Disqus