CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3970X 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

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 3970X

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3970X

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 15 MB vs 8 MB Around 90% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
More threads 12 vs 8 4 more threads
Significantly better geekbench (64-bit) score 21,476 vs 12,209 More than 75% better geekbench (64-bit) score
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 11,830 vs 6,880 More than 70% better 3DMark11 physics score
Significantly lower typical power consumption 121.88W vs 159.66W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,047 vs 1,525 Around 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better PassMark score 12,923 vs 9,134 More than 40% better PassMark score
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit score 34,888 vs 22,674 Around 55% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 6,479 vs 4,338 Around 50% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better performance per watt 8.49 pt/W vs 5.15 pt/W Around 65% better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 36.14 $/year vs 56.1 $/year More than 35% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 131.4 $/year vs 159.62 $/year Around 20% 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 2 MB 4x 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 4 GHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 5.52 pt/$ vs 1.2 pt/$ More than 4.5x better performance per dollar
More cores 8 vs 6 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.33 MB/core More than 3x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,147 vs 7,133.8 More than 40% better PassMark (Overclocked) score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 3970X vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i7 3970X
20,366
FX 8350
11,041

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i7 3970X
11,830
FX 8350
6,880
Core i7 3970X FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com
The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i7 3970X
34,888
FX 8350
22,674
Core i7 3970X FX 8350 @ anandtech.com
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)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

FX 8350
4,338
Core i7 3970X FX 8350 @ anandtech.com

Passmark

Core i7 3970X
12,923
FX 8350
9,134
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)

FX 8350
1,525
Curious about real world scenarios, we decided to drop Furmark and ran 3DMark 11 on the performance preset and took the maximum power consumption during the first GPU test.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 3970X  vs FX 8350 

7.0
8.0
Value is core to this arrangement, and being able to put together a decent AMD CPU/mobo combo for less than a Core i5 setup means that you get a good chunk of cash to spend on your graphics card.
FX 8350

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 3970X  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Hexa 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 3970X  vs
FX 8350 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 8
L2 cache 2 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 15 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 28 709
Overclock review score 0.2 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.68 GHz 4.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.98 GHz 4.99 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 7,133.8 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.68 GHz 4.7 GHz

power consumption

TDP 150W 125W
Annual home energy cost 36.14 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 131.4 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 8.49 pt/W 5.15 pt/W
Typical power consumption 121.88W 159.66W
Intel Core i7 3970X
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus