CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3770K vs 8350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

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?

Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core i7 3770K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3770K  based on its .

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!
VS

Intel Core i7 3770K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i7 3770K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 3770K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3770K

Report a correction
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower idle power consumption 75W vs 92W Around 20% lower idle power consumption
Much lower peak power consumption 128.3W vs 182.21W Around 30% lower peak power consumption
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 14,858 vs 12,198 More than 20% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Better 3DMark11 physics score 8,170 vs 6,880 Around 20% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better performance per watt 8.2 pt/W vs 5.14 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
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 25,703 vs 22,674 Around 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
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 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 5.21 pt/$ vs 3.19 pt/$ Around 65% better performance per dollar
Marginally newer Oct, 2012 vs Apr, 2012 Release date 5 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 3770K vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i7 3770K
13,752
FX 8350
11,004

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
6,880
Core i7 3770K FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com
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.
Core i7 3770K | by Legit Reviews (Apr, 2012)

Cinebench R11.5

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 Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)

Passmark

FX 8350
9,134
Core i7 3770K FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net
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)

Passmark (Single Core)

FX 8350
1,525
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 | by Legit Reviews (Apr, 2012)

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 3770K  vs FX 8350 

8.0
6.0
And because Ivy Bridge chips like the Core i7-3770K are intended for more middle-of-the-road users, they come loaded with integrated graphics systems that can drive up to three independent displays and support HDMI 1.4a and its associated high-quality audio, in addition to InTru 3D (for stereoscopic 3D) and HD video conferencing.
Core i7 3770K

8.0
8.0
It's hard to imagine any desktop PC user ever needing more performance than the new Intel Core i7 3770K serves up.
Core i7 3770K

Overall

8.8 Out of 10
7.9 Out of 10

Specifications Full list of technical specs

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 8.2 pt/W 5.14 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
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
God damn fights just over fucking processor brands!!?!?!?
AMD is better than Intel because AMD 8 and Intel 4 core and AMD 4ghz to 4,2ghz and intel is 3,5 and cant more then you alone choice
The difference between 199 and 229 is not 100 bucks. Having a budget is a valid point but it will not mean you can out perform Intel which is what most people here seem to think.
intel is 100 bucks expensive. If u are a gamer and u are on a budget. Im sorry to say that amd is a king. Cos it is 100 bucks cheaper. And u still get good performance and crazy speed over the amd.
Sorry guy that is a flat out lie. I can tell you that because I own both an 8350 fx, 4670k and a 3770k and a pentium g3220 which is a dual core with no HT. I played crysis 3 on all the beefiest settings and 1 core was at 100 and the other was at 80%. Now, lets say crysis was only able to utilize 2 cores max, that would mean that on an amd system both cores would be at 100% and there would be considerable performance degradation as AMD's IPC is about half of intels. Now luckily crysis can utilize more than 2 cores but all benchmarks still show that IPC is king and that AMD has consistently lower minimum and maximum frame rates compared to intels. Its just fact. Get over the fan boy stage.
AMD processors play games better than Intel processors, end of story. Intel processors are better and Cad, Office, and other production software, but they are not better than AMD in a gaming atmosphere.
Sounds like your a true Fanboy, Go Diddy wong.
fx winner brazil
Well you actually play twice less for your electrcity bill mate If buying it long-term I am so sure you'll going to save with Intel+Great Performance more, than you AMD.
the comments aren't just fanboy, the complete article is fanboy .. slanting favorably for intel .. first, Hyperthreading is Intel specific, that is, spawning two or more threads from the same core .. that's fine but you run in to a bottleneck because i7 cores throughput is capped at 5GTps where the AMD3+ socketed processors allow up to 8GTps of throughput .. second, the article only mentions AMD's L3 cache of 8MB which is the same total cache for the i7 .. the article fails to mention the AMD 8350 series also has an additional 8MB of L2 cache - double the amount of onboard (chip) memory .. lastly, GPU functionality on a CPU is the last thing you want .. it's a terrible design for CPU consideration .. don't believe me? .. read up on heterogeneous programming where GPUs are being placed in systems to alleviate CPU processing loads, even sharing (coherence) the same memory (RAM) .. the idea is to separate the roles of CPU/GPU operations .. see NVidia's CUDA v5.5 SDK environment and understand why loading your CPU down with GPU functionality is a waste of clock cycles and power consumption .. the AMD is by far a better design than the i7
AMD vs intel fanboys only. AMD does, by fact, beat any intel processor for the price, you can get a 6300 for the money of an i3 and beats it in any way-except single core performance which pretty much noone gives a shit about. AMDs 8350 can outperform i7s in multi threaded applications like streaming! On the other Hand, Intel is really good for gaming, draws less power and is built on a smaller manufacturing process allowing more processing power get onto a chip of the same size. Cons of AMD: Amd puts out a lot of heat and youll need a good cooling. Stock cooling often is not enough. The processors get beaten by any i7 in performance. Cons of Intel: The latest Intel chips (Haswell and ivy) are shipped with a very bad TIM(Thermal interface material). TIM is between the actual cores and the heat spreader(The silver plate on the CPU). That results in bad temperatures although the Intel chips draw less power. Also, Intel chips are not suitet for Budget PCs since the only reason to buy an intel processor pretty much is i5 and upwards. Decide for you. Anyone arguing about one or the other beeing shit is indeed a fanboy. No arguing about that.
That is not accurate. AMD has stated they will continue to support the FX line and the AM3+ platform as promised, but it may not be with the current generation/line of CPUs. So in other words, if you have an AMD based AM3+ platform, your future upgrade may be a Kaveri like unit with the more cores, the GPU locked, the GPU portion modified to assist the CPU portion or something like that. This statement was made recently due to all the questioning and freaking out of why a completely faked roadmap that was circulated leaves the FX line out of the picture. This will also introduce PCI-Express 3.0 x16 (at least two slots running at x16 according to AMD), USB 3.0 support and other improvements to the platform. It doesn't make sense for AMD to add these changes now for a few reasons I will not get into for the length of this post. However, it will be there in the future.
Considering AMD is dropping any future plans for the FX series. And putting what they know into the stable and new A-10 7850k. We can put the fanboy stuff away. FX was released to soon and got a bad name. I don't have a problem in anything better than a 6300. But the 1st gen just did not have the manpower behind it to work out the bugs. Match that to a Gigabyte mobo and Sanddisk SSD that was the thing then. No wonder AMD is not trusted. The FX started out less dependable than the 6 cores like the 1090t.
oop its the war of intel and AMD who really gives a shit
They has a mistake there. AMD hal x8 more l2 cache per core.
Rockchip FTW.... LOL, just kidding :)). Even I as an AMD user have to admit that intel performs better for now. AMD however has a great money-performance ratio.
im on the fence and since i started looking into building a new pc all i see is intel over charging just because their best ivy bridge (and lol at any intel fan that calls the 4th gen better than the ivy bridge) barely beats the 4gig 8 core amd for $130 less than the i7 on newegg... sorry but games may only be able to utilize 4 cores but any gamer that runs more than 1 monitor will almost certainly be running other programs at the same some BIG EXAMPLE: twitch streaming... areas like that is where the amd will win out over intel because of the multi-tasking capabilities without sacrificing CPU power on their games. Sorry but the slight 4-core performance increase the i-7 gives isnt worth losing that AND spending $130 extra.
Guy, really. Its not 8 true cores. It has 8 integer cores and 4 floating point cores. Games rarely use integer cores so you can't really call it a true 8 core simply because most games and not all applications will be able to use more than 4 cores. Intel has higher IPC and so 4 intel cores can out perform 8 amd cores although not in every application but most. Fact of the matter is that fanboy's aside for $20 bucks more I can get a better CPU and $20 bucks will not break my bank. It really has nothing to do with being a fanboy, Intel is winning right now. I am happy however that consoles will now use and AMD 8 core as games for consoles are basically PC games now and this means that when most games get optimized for 8 cores AMD will probably begin to overtake intel in gaming performance simply because games will be able to utilize 8 cores while intel only has 4 even if those 4 are stronger cores.
Ahh an intel fanboy enjoying a single core benchmark score, then having true 8 cores, instead of 4 cores and 4 virtual cores... I choose AMD all the time, because they multitask better then any Intel processor, and Intel only got to where it was because AMD shared its data on its old processors, remember the intel five!!! They would still be there if it was not for a decent company helping out an old war horse!
stfu
shit head first look at the price its 320$ twice more than amd and still only beats by an inch or 2
the point is not AMD or intel, just who used it and for what . . .
This is extremely fanboying. You're running far away from reality...it's so obvious. I really don't know what am i supposed to react from a comment like yours. Should i cry or LMFAO...this is just scary :S
dont forget about the 9370 and 9590 (even though you would have to saw off a couple appendages to afford the latter).
Multithreading per core doesn't bring QUITE the boost that one would think it does. It's not the same thing as a CPU (It gives you 40-60% increases in performance for SPECIFIC circumstances- and a goodly portion of what you're doing isn't going to bring more than 10-20%) and having 8 cores, so long as you're throwing crap to run at them, will be faster than 4 cores with two "threads" per core.
comments powered by Disqus