Winner
Intel Core i7 3820
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3820 based on its .
See full details Intel Core i7 3820 vs AMD FX 8350 |
Released February, 2012
Intel Core i7 3820
- 3.6 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
8.3 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i7 3820
 | Is hyperthreaded Yes | | More l3 cache 10 MB |
| | Much more l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core | | Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,941 |
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2012)The performance of the Intel Core i7-3820 was significantly better thanks to overclocking as one could imagine.
VS
Released October, 2012
AMD FX 8350
- 4 GHz
- Octa core
- Unlocked
8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 8350
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz |
| | Higher clock speed 4 GHz | | More cores 8 |
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)Having eight cores at 4GHz is impressive, after all it wasn't that long ago that we were striving to break 4GHz when overclocking.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3820 vs 8350
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core) | |
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 | |
 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core i7 3820CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More l3 cache | 10 MB | vs | 8 MB | 25% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 2.5x more l3 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,941 | vs | 1,525 | More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Significantly better 3DMark11 physics score | 10,460 | vs | 6,880 | More than 50% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Lower idle power consumption | 82.6W | vs | 92W | More than 10% lower idle power consumption | |||
| Lower peak power consumption | 158.6W | vs | 182.21W | Around 15% lower peak power consumption | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 139.6W | vs | 159.66W | Around 15% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Better geekbench (64-bit) score | 13,673 | vs | 12,105 | Around 15% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | 5,006 | vs | 4,319 | More than 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | |||
| Slightly better performance per watt | 6.87 pt/W | vs | 5.32 pt/W | Around 30% better performance per watt | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 49.49 $/year | vs | 56.1 $/year | More than 10% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 138.93 $/year | vs | 159.62 $/year | Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 3.8 GHz | More than 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.6 GHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 10,147 | vs | 5,531.8 | Around 85% better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Better performance per dollar | 4.85 pt/$ | vs | 3.57 pt/$ | More than 35% better performance per dollar | |||
| Marginally newer | Oct, 2012 | vs | Feb, 2012 | Release date 8 months later | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 3820 vs FX 8350
GeekBench (32-bit)
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Core i7 3820 | by PCMag (Mar, 2012)On the Futuremark 3DMark 11 physics test, the Core i7-3820 dropped just below our threshold for smooth pliability, with a score of 8,679 and 27.6 frames per second (or fps) compared with 10,958 and 34.78fps for the Core i7-3930K and 11,509 and 36.54fps for the Core i7-3960X.
Cinebench R10 32-Bit
Core i7 3820 | by Tech Radar (Jan, 2012)Thanks to the extra couple of cores in the mid-range Sandy Bridge E chip, it takes a lead in the multi-threaded Cinebench rendering and X264 encoding tests.
Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)
Core i7 3820 | by PCMag (Mar, 2012)But compared with the Core i7-3830K, you won’t see much of a difference in single-threaded applications: Both chips scored the same (1.53) in the CineBench R11.5 single-core test, showing where you can save money if you don’t heavily depend on highly threaded programs.
Passmark
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)Looking at the physics score we can see a difference of just under 900 points with the AMD FX-8350 taking the lead with 7325 3DMarks.
Passmark (Single Core)
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.
Reviews Word on the street
| Core i7 3820 | vs | FX 8350 | ||
 | Core i7 3820 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Core i7 3820 | |||
Overall | Out of 10 | Out of 10 | ||
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i7 3820 | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Octa core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 2011 | |||
| 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 | None | None | |
| Label | N/A | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | N/A | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1866 | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3-1066 | |||
| Channels | Quad Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 51,200 MB/s | 29,866.66 MB/s | |
details | Core i7 3820 | 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 | 10 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 142 | 709 | |
| Overclock review score | 5 | 0.95 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.71 GHz | 4.74 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.87 GHz | 4.98 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 5,531.8 | 10,147 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.71 GHz | 4.74 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 130W | 125W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 49.49 $/year | 56.1 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 138.93 $/year | 159.62 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 6.87 pt/W | 5.32 pt/W | |
| Idle power consumption | 82.6W | 92W | |
| Peak power consumption | 158.6W | 182.21W | |
| Typical power consumption | 139.6W | 159.66W | |
 Intel Core i7 3820  Report a correction |  AMD FX 8350 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $240 | $200 | |
| 4670K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $340 | $200 | |
| 4770K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $230 | $200 | |
| 3570K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $330 | $200 | |
| 3770K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $160 | $200 | |
| 8320 vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $200 | ||
| 7850K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS | |
| $200 | $200 | |
| 4570 vs 8350 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $117 | $47 | |
| E4600 vs E3300 | ||
 | VS | |
| $340 | ||
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS | |
| $340 | $240 | |
| 4770K vs 4670K | ||
 | VS | |
| $332 | $340 | |
| 4820k vs 4770K | ||
| | VS | |
| $240 | $200 | |
| 4670K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| 4200U vs 3230M | ||
 | VS | |
| $393 | $281 | |
| 4500U vs 4200U | ||
