CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3770K vs 8350


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


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

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


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

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!

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 newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm 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
Much more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,088 vs 1,525 More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
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 12,126 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 7.88 pt/W vs 4.95 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
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
Better performance per dollar 6.26 pt/$ vs 3.83 pt/$ Around 65% better performance per dollar
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Apr, 2012 Release date 5 months later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.99 GHz vs 4.7 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

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

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i7 3770K
FX 8350

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
Core i7 3770K FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R11.5

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)


FX 8350
Core i7 3770K FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net

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
Is hyperthreaded Yes No


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


Overclock popularity 332 709
Overclock review score 0.96 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.72 GHz 4.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.7 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 7.88 pt/W 4.95 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.
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!
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.
comments powered by Disqus