Winner
Intel Core i7 3770K
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3770K based on its .
See full details| | Intel Core i7 3770K vs AMD FX 8350 |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Is hyperthreaded Yes |
| | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms | | Significantly lower typical power consumption 114.98W |
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Higher clock speed 4 GHz |
| | Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz | | More cores 8 |
When it comes to a comparison between the Intel Core i7 3770K and the AMD FX 8350, it means we are talking about two processors of great quality and power. However they serve different purposes and are better suited for different tasks. On one hand we have the i7 3770K, which boasts an impressive quartet of 3.5GHz cores which are left unlocked and are capable of reaching 3.9GHz when overclocked. The 3770K also sports an Intel HD Graphics 4000 and 8MB of L3 cache. However, on the other hand there is the FX 8350 which trumps the 3770K when it comes to sheer processing power, even though it has the same amount of L3 cache: the eight cores, each clocking at 4GHz, with the ability to reach up to 4.2GHz, completely blow the 3770K out the water when it comes to raw speed.
The dividing point between the two powerhouses is, however, the fact that the 3770K has an integrated GPU whereas the FX 8350 does not. This is what makes the two processors best suited for different tasks: while the 3770K is perfect for gaming enthusiasts, with its great graphics and speed, the FX 8350 is more fitting for people who do many things at once- due to its eight cores- such as video encoding and rendering, along with several other activities on the side.
As a conclusion that is supported by the comparison results below, I've found that each processor serves a different purpose and fits different work loads and tasks.
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Core i7 3770K 8.6 FX 8350 8.1 | |
| Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Core i7 3770K 9.5 FX 8350 8.1 | |
| Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Core i7 3770K 9.3 FX 8350 9.9 | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Core i7 3770K 6.5 FX 8350 7.4 | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
| Core i7 3770K 8.9 FX 8350 8.2 | |
Winner |
Intel Core i7 3770KCPUBoss Winner | | |
| |||||||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
| Newer manufacturing process | 22 nms | vs | 32 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly lower typical power consumption | 114.98W | vs | 159.66W | Around 30% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,090 | vs | 1,525 | More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 2x more l3 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | 6,862 | vs | 4,338 | Around 60% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | |||
| Better geekbench (64-bit) score | 14,950 | vs | 12,153 | Around 25% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 8,170 | vs | 6,880 | Around 20% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 8.05 pt/W | vs | 5.05 pt/W | Around 60% better performance per watt | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 42.19 $/year | vs | 56.1 $/year | Around 25% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 112.39 $/year | vs | 159.62 $/year | Around 30% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Slightly better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 25,703 | vs | 22,674 | Around 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.5 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 3.9 GHz | Around 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 10,147 | vs | 6,731.8 | More than 50% better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Significantly better performance per dollar | 5.19 pt/$ | vs | 3.13 pt/$ | More than 65% better performance per dollar | |||
| Marginally newer | Oct, 2012 | vs | Apr, 2012 | Release date 5 months later | |||
Core i7 3770K | by Legit Reviews (Apr, 2012)Since the Intel HD 4000 Graphics supports DirectX 11 you can run 3DMark 11 on the Intel Core i7-3770K processor without the need of a discrete graphics card.
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.
Core i7 3770K | by Legit Reviews (Apr, 2012)Benchmark Results: The Intel Core i7-3770K finished in third place, which is where it has finished in most of the benchmarks with a solid score of 21293 3DMarks.
Core i7 3770K | by Legit Reviews (Apr, 2012)Benchmark Results: The CPU benchmark results in 3DMark Vantage showed the Intel Core i7-3770K coming in third place again with a score of 26646 3DMarks.
| Core i7 3770K | vs | FX 8350 | ||
| 8.0 | 6.0 | Core i7 3770K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.0 | 8.0 | Core i7 3770K | |
Overall | 8.8 Out of 10 | 7.9 Out of 10 | ||
summary | Core i7 3770K | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 4.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Octa core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 1155 | |||
| AM3+ | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | Yes | |
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AVX | |||
| XOP | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| FMA4 | |||
| F16C | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4000 | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | 11.x | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 650 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,150 MHz | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | 5,339.9 | 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 i7 3770K | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 8 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 332 | 709 | |
| Overclock review score | 0.96 | 0.95 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.72 GHz | 4.7 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.9 GHz | 4.99 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 6,731.8 | 10,147 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.72 GHz | 4.7 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 77W | 125W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 42.19 $/year | 56.1 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 112.39 $/year | 159.62 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 8.05 pt/W | 5.05 pt/W | |
| Idle power consumption | 75W | 92W | |
| Peak power consumption | 128.3W | 182.21W | |
| Typical power consumption | 114.98W | 159.66W | |
| Intel Core i7 3770K | AMD FX 8350 |
| VS | |
| $177 | $235 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 4670K | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $325 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i7 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $143 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs 8320 | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $230 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 3570K | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $166 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs A10 7850K | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $240 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel 4690K | ||
| VS | |
| $177 | $195 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 4690 | ||
| 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 | |
| $225 | ||
| Intel Core i3 3217U vs Celeron N2830 | ||
| VS | |
| $281 | $97 | |
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
| VS | |
| Samsung Exynos 5 Octa vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| AMD A10 5750M vs Intel Core i7 4700MQ | ||