CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6600K vs 8350 among all CPUs


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

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

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?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more


CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Intel Core i5 6600K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 6600K  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 6600K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 6600K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 6600K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 6600K

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 73.94W vs 159.66W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 8,372 vs 4,338 Around 95% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,147 vs 1,525 More than 40% better PassMark (Single core) score
Newer Jul, 2015 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 2 years later
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 21.92 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 29,116 vs 22,674 Around 30% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Higher Maximum operating temperature 64 °C vs 61 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
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 better performance per dollar 13.29 pt/$ vs 1.37 pt/$ Around 9.8x better performance per dollar
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.9 GHz Around 10% higher turbo clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Better performance per watt 5.71 pt/W vs 3.13 pt/W More than 80% better performance per watt
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.56 GHz Around 95% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 6600K vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 6600K
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 6600K
6,060 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i5 6600K
FX 8350

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i5 6600K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.9 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 91W 125W
Annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 3.13 pt/W 5.71 pt/W
Typical power consumption 73.94W 159.66W


Core i5 6600K  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 14 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 64°C Unknown - 61°C


Overclocked clock speed 4.54 GHz 4.73 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.56 GHz 8.79 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.54 GHz 4.73 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 530 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 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 6600K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.
can you say me how did you get 8,79 GHZ on FX? and can you say me about what water cooler do this?
That result is complete bollocks because it's purely due to the Intel having an integrated GPU and the AMD not. If you look at every benchmark *except* GPU, they're basically head-to-head.
The i5 6600k should not be considered for high end builds either. Its a budget CPU. Its pretty cheap now. Its only 19.1% faster than the aged FX 8350 in 3dmark cpu scores (if you overclock i5 6600k to 4.2ghz). Thats pretty slow considering FX 8350 is a 4 year processor. You won't benchmark in the top 20% with 3dmark. You will likely be in mid-ranged gaming systems.
I have a FX 8350 and I get 100% usage on two 7970's/ aka 7990 equivalent. I get higher frame rates than in the video shown. I'm only over-clocked to 4.2 GHz. I'm not saying that the AMD is better. My point is If you start scaling higher than 1080p resolutions, you will be GPU bound even on a FX 8350. But with that said..> i can't recommend an FX 8350.
Why would I ever setup my Fx-8350 on a 32-bit seriously, this is the most retarded benchmarks I've ever seen for a comparison. Why would I benchmark my fx-8350 for a single-core that's dumb I wouldn't. Only multi-core and also 64-bit.
Its all about single core performance in games. and intel is clearly the victor in that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NNwSDPo1Dg the 6600k is scoring nearly 20 fps better than the 8350 in all tests. The 8350 is old and shouldn't be considered for high end builds with any card above a 380x or 960. even then an i5 6400 would still perform better than the 8350. So nice try, amd fuckboy.
bullshit. had a i3 6100 and swapped it with a i5 6600k - same GPU, RAM and MB and now it is running GTA V with ~75 FPS instead of ~45 FPS. CPU still matters.
Ok retard, let me bash some fucking sense into your tiny head. You obviously haven't taken the time to actually look at some damn benchmarks, instead you are shoving your head so far up your own ass, you might disappear. CPU performance is damn near POINTLESS is most, if not all modern games. Literally, the GPU 99% of the weight. I fucking promise that a Pentium anniversary edition plus a 980 would beat out a decent i7 with a 960. And the 960 is still quite a bit up there in the GPU world. "amd fuckboy" you lost ALL credibility right then and there.
I5 has much better single core performance. Which matters more espically in gaming and destroys even the 9590, nice try amd fuckboy.
You have overall better performance with double the cores (plus a better overclock speed) , and who uses integrated graphics , you can get a nice 2gb DDR5 graphics card and the Intel processor wont stand a chance. THAT if you don't care at all about power consumption!
If hitler was still round here he would install intel to his tanks IMHO
Would really love an option to disregard intergrated graphics on the overall rating, because intel iGpu can barely benchmark minesweeper and anyone stupid enough to game on it soon learns they stuffed up!
intel payed more for the 8320 vs i5 6600k fight...if amd would spend more money for on cpuboss a 1ghz single core from amd would beat the i7 5960x in multicore benchmarks...same with 970 vs r9 390...amd wins in everything...nvidia is 20% better...money is everything
The only reason the I5 scored higher was because of the integrated graphics, who the hell uses integrated graphics? Get a damn GPU if you are gonna spend this much damn money on a CPU.
That argument dont make sence, with a waching machine draing abou 3000W form the wall you will rebuild your computer for 50W more than a Intel ? lol just LOL . Beter pick Led lamps and you will spend a lot less energy and spend a lot less in hardware 2 ... The KHW here cost about 0.15€ it means 10000W over 1 Hour cost you 0.15€, you need use that I5, 12H days for many but many years to get your many back... See some jayz 2 cent to bring some ligth to your head ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0 I know many people o complain about AMD Fx and wen i go there to see the computers they have instaled a 32bit version of the SO, some times i fount people with a Nvidia 610 instaled sayng AMD is bad for gaming ... for real ? A Nvidia 610 ? gaming ? LOOOOL Or people ho istal low frequency DDR3 Ram -.- WHY BUY WHY if he can suport high frequency why people do that... IT COST NEAR THE SAME. GTA ? for real ? The AMD is having great performance in GTA 5 xD is easy find in youtube even a I3 cant stand vs a FX 6300 GTA5... You cant run GTA5 with out CPU botlenecks in one I3 .... is a very demanding game....
Maybe my power company has better rates than yours but amount of power of my 860k desktop AND 8370 desktop use in a year coupled with a r9 280 puts me about 10-20$ more than when I didn't have them hooked up (based off first month power bill when I had nothing plugged in) do COMBINED that puts me at about $125-250 for the year and again thats for two desktops not just running a single desktop set up. The difference in a intel and amd desktop and im talking best case scenario is $100 difference and thats best case. Usually it pushes towards $200 between the overpriced cpu and motherboard of intel compared to amd counter part. AMD can match overall performance of anything intel has up to its mid range i5's so unless you need something more than that which most people don't your going to be fine with AMD. Considering you are suppose to upgrade every couple years there is no "in the long term". You have to have some major rig with multiple gpus and monitors to put out the electricity that going intel is going to make a difference but it will still take a couple years before you see that difference. DDR4 is coming to amd soon enough. Intel has the high end market, period, no arguments can be made its a fact. If you are running servers for games like minecraft or hosting other games, running a buisness off one, doing serious CAD work ect yeah go intel but if your even a semi serious gamer or just an everyday pc user its insane not to go amd, you are throwing money out the window with intel. Gotten Dragon age inquisition 50 fps with a ton of mods on almost everything ultra, playing fallout 4 everything ultra at 40fps with a bunch of mods with my whimpy overclocked 860k. No doubt there is bottleneck to my r9 280 but thats what I am seeing and its pretty smooth and the fcking thing cost me $70 on sale. You can power save with amd and get the performance you need I promise, up to a certain point. Just because intel is better in power and performance doesn't mean its the best choice. Tired of people wasting money and getting ripped off because intel fanboys can read benchmarks and see real world results with amd hardware. If someone needs intel hardware thats what I make sure they have but if they don't they don't need to drop $100-$300 more to save money they wont see for worst case scenario 2 years but probably longer. If you are throwing out more than $100 in power from a single desktop a year I promise you that you have another issue besides your cpu.
Also 8370 needs about 30% less energy
It has twice the cores, that perform like 1 Intel core for every two. I am not an Intel fanboy, I have two AMD graphics cards, I have had a FX-6300, I have an FX-8320 right now. And I have never had an actually really good Intel desktop, because I have recently gotten into building good PCs. I used to just fix them. First of all. Intel CPUs are basically completely independent and use SMT technology. Each core has its own FPU core, a new AVX-512 bit extension vs the old 256-bit version etc. Intel CPUs also can use a newer technology of instructions called AVX2 and FMA3, which is faster. They are also 2 nanometer generations ahead of AMD and use less power while having better performance. AMD cores are within a module and each one shares resources, they have ONE FPU per-core which in turn makes each two cores have the same processing power in floating-point operations as a single-core CPU. They also share L1 and L2 caches. There is 8MB L2 and that is divided into 2MB per-module and 1MB per-core. The stripping and sharing of such resources, decreases each core's performance greatly and makes them rely heavily on each other for performance. Many games can't take advantage of AMD's 8-cores and DirectX 11 even though a game has the ability to use all 8-cores if it does, most of the coding is loaded onto one core and then distributed onto the other cores. Not to how cheap the casing of the CPU is, which makes it only withstand about 60 degrees celsius before your CPU could begin malfunctioning. When bulldozer first came out, it was a challenge, but shortly after that they don't hold any weight. All of AMD's CPU's don't have an answer for many I5's and I would say none of the I7's of a newer generation. Intel CPUs are created with top of the line products and can withstand temperatures far greater than 60 celsius. They are reliable, durable, and have great performance. I would really love to see AMD step it up, I love their company, but they haven't really went anywhere CPU wise in the last 3-4 years. When Zen comes out, maybe we'll see, but until then I am getting an Intel CPU. It has technology far ahead of AMD as of now.
There is a big difference between DDR4-2133 and DDR3 1866, DDR4 uses less power, can have a higher amount of memory per module 16GB/stick compared to DDR3 8GB/stick, there's different options and features that DDR3 doesn't have, there's more Internal Banks, and more bank groups (DDR3 had 0) which allows faster burst access. The speed of DDR4-2133, just looking at the speed in MHZ is pretty significant, and on top of that the other features that will make it even faster than just reading the speed it shows. It's almost like looking at a Pentium D and I5, and looking at the speed in GHZ. I have an 8320, and sometimes I really don't like it, it is the same as the 8350, but it is clocked lower unless turbo is on and it goes to 4GHZ. It bottlenecks my GPU on GTA V (that's like the only multi-core game I play at this moment), and definitely on a game that relies more on single-core performance. I am getting an Intel CPU. It has better performance, and it uses less power. Plus it has more stable frame-rates on virtually every game that I have seen with a comparable AMD counter-part, and on top of that programs outside of games. 79.72 $/year vs 159.62 $/year for less performance and a hotter CPU. You have to look at the bigger picture. Intel is doing it big, and is dominating the CPU market. I however like AMD GPUs, even though there's pretty much the same problems between NVIDIA and AMD, but it's less significant.
I have an AMD CPU, but I have to say I am getting an Intel CPU. I basically built this because I was short on cash, and it is a start. I can play every game out, BUT Intel has a 14nm design, which in turn uses less power, and is more efficient. The 8350 uses 125W vs the i5 6600k's 91W, Intel is more expensive up front, BUT with AMD in the long run, you will be paying more in power. Not to mention the performance decrease in single-core applications along with it. Intel is more versatile. It works great in games, and even better outside of video games. The frame-rates are more stable when compared to AMD's 8-cores also.. AND DDR4, amazing. AMD needs to step it up, I heard of their 14nm design, but I am getting an Intel processor. AMD is going in the direction someone else already is in. SMT, and per-core dependence. But for now, they are 2 nanometer generations behind. I forgot to mention, my CPU bottlenecks my GPU in certain games, like GTA V. Frame-rate is all over the place, it just doesn't handle threads well.
That's nice for future upgrades but right now there's no real difference between DDR4 and DDR3 the 8350 can run 1866 DDR3 the speed difference is impossible to notice and its a LOT cheaper
Gotta love how all the Benchmarks are for single core only. The 8350 has twice the cores, I got mine overclocked to 4.7 EASY on air (Phanteks) and this CPU costs HALF of what that I5 costs! The 8350 destroys that i5 at half the price with technology from 2012 what a fucking embarrassment Intel
if you use Ln2 cooling.
comments powered by Disqus