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 i7 3770K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3770K

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 i7 3770K.

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

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3770K
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3770K
2,620,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3770K
FX 8350

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3770K
FX 8350


Core i7 3770K
FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 3770K  vs FX 8350 




8.8 Out of 10
7.9 Out of 10

Specifications Full list of technical specs


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
Is unlocked Yes Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

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
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s


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 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,400,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 35 21
Voltage range 1.33 - 1.36V 0.81 - 1.45V
Operating temperature Unknown - 67.4°C Unknown - 61°C


Overclock popularity 332 709
Overclock review score 0.96 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.69 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.8 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,731.8 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.69 GHz 4.69 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 4.55 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Idle power consumption 75W 92W
Peak power consumption 128.3W 182.21W
Typical power consumption 114.97W 159.66W
Intel Core i7 3770K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.
Ah yes. The good old days, where it seemed intel reigned supreme. Thanks AMD for always having my back.
look now nobody imagine that fx 8350 will love dx 12 moree than anyone , where intel skylake is stuttering as hell...also u cant stream today with intel i5, even i7 have problems in multitred games, but not a fx 8350 who living a second life i belive
Remember, when you guys told me that amd will never recover? Haha, jokes on you intel shills. AMD WON!
Ya my FX is still going strong im gonna keep the rig for games that dont play well with windows 10, got my old gtx 670 2gb to throw in, Got a Ryzen 5 1600X and its a little monster of a CPU, and they dont get that hot, the boards out for the AM4 platform suck with the vrams and powerphase, but i expect them to get a lot better over this year mine is only 85 bucks on sale, but with stock Ryzen fan cooler people dont even go over 50-60c on their cpu will gaming and doing normal things,AMD just dropped a bunch of bricks on intels heads lol, their gonna be making some cpus with lower pricing now watch and their gonna suck compared to AMD :)
actually when i run GTA 5 it uses more then 4 cores on my AMD FX 8350, and Watchdogs 2 uses more then 4 cores too, i can see it when i have my AMD Overdrive running so i can see the temps and how much CPU usage is goin on
my AMD FX 8350 can handle The Wicher 3 at 1440p 60 fps all day easy, and i dont overclock it all i have is a H60 liquid cooler and it really runs cool as hell so please insmell is just a company trying to make the most money they can while AMD cares about their CPUs, they last longer and with Ryzen out now intel is feeling that pressure, and have to keep making new shiz to try and look good. Trust an extra 2-400 dollars for 5-10 more fps is def not worth it.
But if you consider the price, I think I can handle an extra $5 per month in my power bill*
Just wanted to point out that if you factor in price this isn't a fair comparison. Some of us don't have the luxury of just buying top notch. Here is a run down of the prices at this time. i7 3770K is $454.90 fx-8350 is $139.99 i3-3240 is $138.00 If you look at the i3 vs fx comparison (see link below) the fx wins the performance score but not the value score.
I would never opt for an AMD over Intel unless it is ZEN. If what they have demonstrated is true, I would opt for 8 cores 16 threads that are on par with Intel's current, but not bulldozer, that IPC is laughable.
Ridiculous.I have always stood by AMD,but its obvious that pentium smokes AMD,performance wise.Not only benchmarks but real usage proves it.Serious video editing or audio producing leaves AMD in the dust.
this site is very biased how are they going to give the fx 8350 5.8 score and the craptel a 8.6, there is no way they are that far apart as a 8350 owner i have never had any problems playing any game and i have over 80 games on steam a lot of them are triple A titles Dark Souls 3 runs beautiful. all the newer games now a days recommend a 8350 to get the best performance for gaming, lol those scores are a joke. who put them there hillary or donald. fucking clowns
Its an old post still want to know what do u mean by "Just look at crisis 3 with an amd cpu vs intel cpu."? I played this game with AMD Ultra settings on FX 8350 runs amazing so what is your point? played games as Ryse son of rom, Withcer 3, Tomb raider 2015, Skyrim with all the enhanced mods of 4k graphics mods. GTA 2015, AC Unity, Syndicate the list goes on. I have never had problem running these games only issue was GPU which I upgraded.
Also two of the benchmarks are related with integrated GPU which is not even a CPU's comparison in the first place. Intel FB look at the Specification given in the end L2 mb cache which base of measuring the CPU performance AMD clearly taken leap to the Finish line. Games such as Ryse Son of Rome, AC Unity, DIVISION loads, plays without any problem with AMD 8350 (all @ ultra settings ) I been multi tasking with programs as photo shop, 3DS max, havok with AMD and never had problem.
The CPU is not the only variable when it comes to frames, sorry. Also, you're*
Can It Beat 5960X
i5 has 1st gen processor and 5th gen processor. u mean amd's best processor like (fx 9590/8350) can't beat 1st gen i5. it's absolutely nonsence. FX 9590/8350 can beat any 3rd gen i5+4th gen (i5 4440/4460/4590) easily. u can check benchmark.
- You're. - , my - On YouTube. - Two - CPUs. - played. - I'm not an AMD - I - an extra
Actually , it can make a significant difference . Just look at the more cpu demanding games : if i can only use 4 cores , amd may be a bottleneck because amd cores are weak. Just look at crisis 3 with an amd cpu vs intel cpu.
I got my i7 3770k for 100$ , and i run it a 4.9 ghz . It beats any amd processor i can think of.
Linux, so light.
CPU will not effect FPS that much at all, your GPU will. People call Intel users fanboys, but don't understand CPU's at all!
Actually Benchmarks that I have done puts the intel at over 25% faster per core, clock speed mean nothing if CPU is slower. If the program runs over 4 cores AMD will be faster, otherwise i7 is 25% faster!
And 25% slower cores in GFlops and actual performance, so 4 Intel cores = 5 AMD cores and hardly any game uses more then 4 cores so you are wasting 4 cores and sitting with 4 cores with 25% less speed in Battlefield.
i7 has 25% faster cores, so unless the program uses more then 4 cores and the CPU power used is also more it will be slower.
Almost every benchmark puts the i7 ahead and the i7 3770k was pretty cheap a few years back (20-30 bucks difference between it and a FX 8350). People say that reviewers lie but the bottom line is that the intel CPU is 10% faster at most tasks. Most of the benchmarks above use all the CPU cores, however most real World applications use 1-4 cores and in a 1-4 core game such as battlefield the i7 creams the AMD as it is 25% faster per core. Unless you open 2 Visual Studio's, 2 SQL server studio's, Android SDK, Skype, Outlook, 2 different Web Browsers, 2 Windows Media players and Star Citizen at the same time the i7 will be faster.
comments powered by Disqus