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

Winner
Intel Core i7 3820 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3820  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 3820

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i7 3820

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 3820

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3820

Report a correction
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Much lower idle power consumption 82.6W vs 92W More than 10% lower idle power consumption
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 3DMark11 physics score 10,460 vs 6,880 More than 50% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,938 vs 1,525 More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Lower typical power consumption 139.6W vs 159.66W Around 15% lower typical power consumption
Lower peak power consumption 158.6W vs 182.21W Around 15% lower peak power consumption
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 13,975 vs 12,238 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 6.72 pt/W vs 5.21 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
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 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
Significantly better performance per dollar 5.28 pt/$ vs 3.38 pt/$ More than 55% better performance per dollar
Marginally newer Oct, 2012 vs Feb, 2012 Release date 8 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 3820 vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i7 3820
12,558
FX 8350
11,063

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i7 3820
10,460
FX 8350
6,880
Core i7 3820 FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com
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.
Core i7 3820 | by PCMag (Mar, 2012)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i7 3820
23,387
FX 8350
23,437
Core i7 3820 FX 8350 @ anandtech.com
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.
Core i7 3820 | by Tech Radar (Jan, 2012)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

Core i7 3820
5,006
FX 8350
4,319
Core i7 3820 FX 8350 @ anandtech.com
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.
Core i7 3820 | by PCMag (Mar, 2012)

Passmark

Core i7 3820
9,016
FX 8350
9,134
Core i7 3820 FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net
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.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i7 3820
1,938
FX 8350
1,525
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)

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 3820  vs FX 8350 

8.0
6.0
The Core i7-3820 has only four processing cores rather than six and thus can handle only eight threads rather than 12.
Core i7 3820

8.0
8.0
Predictably things are pretty close in terms of raw performance.
Core i7 3820

Overall

8.7 Out of 10
7.9 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 4.7 GHz 4.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.86 GHz 4.98 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,531.8 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.7 GHz 4.75 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 6.72 pt/W 5.21 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

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus