CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3820 vs 8350 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

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

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

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

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
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,939 vs 1,525 More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much lower typical power consumption 139.6W vs 159.66W Around 15% lower typical power consumption
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 5,006 vs 4,338 More than 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
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
Higher Maximum operating temperature 66.8 °C vs 61 °C Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 12,538 vs 11,483 Around 10% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Much lower annual home energy cost 49.49 $/year vs 56.1 $/year More than 10% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 138.93 $/year vs 159.62 $/year Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost
Better performance per watt 6.99 pt/W vs 5.84 pt/W Around 20% better performance per watt
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
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.8 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
Significantly higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.6 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.73 GHz More than 85% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better performance per dollar 8.87 pt/$ vs 4.62 pt/$ More than 90% better performance per dollar
Newer Oct, 2012 vs Feb, 2012 Release date 8 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 3820 vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3820
12,538
FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3820
3,098
FX 8350
2,193

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3820
2,500,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3820
12,550
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 3820
13,644
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i7 3820
15,655
FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 3820
9,014
FX 8350
9,134

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i7 3820
1,939
FX 8350
1,525

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 3820  vs FX 8350 

8.0
6.0
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

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

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

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
DDR3
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
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 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,270,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 36 21
Voltage range 0.6 - 1.35V 0.82 - 1.45V
Operating temperature Unknown - 66.8°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 142 709
Overclock review score 5 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.72 GHz 4.73 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.73 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,531.8 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.72 GHz 4.73 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 6.99 pt/W 5.84 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