CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3770K vs 8350 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)


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

Fire Strike

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?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more


CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Intel Core i7 3770K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3770K  based on its single-core performance and power consumption.

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!

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
Much lower typical power consumption 114.98W vs 159.66W Around 30% lower typical power consumption
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 6,862 vs 4,338 Around 60% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 2,087 vs 1,525 More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much lower annual home energy cost 42.19 $/year vs 56.1 $/year Around 25% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 112.39 $/year vs 159.62 $/year Around 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Much better PassMark score 9,614 vs 9,134 More than 5% better PassMark score
Much 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
Much better performance per dollar 8.31 pt/$ vs 2.41 pt/$ Around 3.5x better performance per dollar
Significantly higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Significantly 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
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.66 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better performance per watt 5.83 pt/W vs 4.96 pt/W Around 20% better performance per watt
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Apr, 2012 Release date 5 months later

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 

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

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


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 0.82 - 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 4.7 GHz 4.73 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.66 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,731.8 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.7 GHz 4.73 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 4.96 pt/W 5.83 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


Showing 25 comments.
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.
Your so stupid, My IQ went down by 10 just from reading that. on youtube there is a video comparing these to cpu's together and guess what? There was only a 3-5 FPS difference on each game played, He also showed how he could render a video while playing ArmA 3 with the AMD 8350 where as on the other hand.. the 3770k couldn't, I ain't a AMD fanboy i use intel myself, but paying a extra 150 quid is not worth an extra 5 FPS
By the way I used the same ram and video card in both machines
I think it is funny. I have a i7 4770. It runs ok. But here is the catcher. I just bought a amd fx-9370 16gb ram radeon r9 290x 4gb gddr5 Kingston 120gb ssd 3tb hd liqtech 240 liquid cooler roswill 850wt extreme edition psu. I play games such as cod aw at highest settings. Ok the i7 was at 110fps which is GOOD. But the so called underdog amd was pushing a mind blowing 190+fps. So intel can kiss my A@$
to have a AMD processor is like to have a Nissan GTR with a brick under the throttle pedal, (the brick is the software), software must be optimized to take all the power from the cpu, untill that moment, intel will win anytime PD: i have a phenom II X6
at the end of the day, everyone is going to laugh at you for having an AMD processor because AMD is for homos
sorry for the spelling fails guys.
Well i i think the price makes the fx 8350 the winner. and the i7 is better for gaming wereas the fx 8350 excells at productivity task. or so i have been told. i ended up buying the fx 8350 and i am very pleased with the preformance. the only problem i have with the fx 8350 is the tempreature. it is hard to keep it cool. but what do you expect with 8 cores jammed into such a small space. but if you have the money the 17 would be the way to go.
Man I want to spend 130 more so I can get 5 more frames! POWER TO THE DERP!
comments powered by Disqus