Winner
Intel Core i7 4770
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4770 based on its .
See full details Intel Core i7 4770 vs AMD FX 8350 |
Released June, 2013
Intel Core i7 4770
- 3.4 GHz
- Quad core
8.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i7 4770
 | Is hyperthreaded Yes | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms | | Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W |
by Shawn-Baker (Jun, 2013)Overclocking as you'd expect brings with it a performance boost and we look forward to gaining even more MHz off the CPU in the coming weeks as we use the platform more and more, and hence become better skilled at overclocking the new Haswell chips.
VS
Released October, 2012
AMD FX 8350
- 4 GHz
- Octa core
- Unlocked
8.3 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 8350
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Is unlocked Yes |
| | Higher clock speed 4 GHz | | Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz |
by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)Like the K Series Intel chips, the entire FX range is unlocked, so overclocking is definitely on the menu.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4770 vs 8350
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Passmark | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 1 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 4770CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
| Newer manufacturing process | 22 nms | vs | 32 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 68.25W | vs | 159.66W | 2.3x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,029 | vs | 1,525 | Around 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 2x more l3 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better performance per watt | 15.33 pt/W | vs | 5.32 pt/W | Around 3x better performance per watt | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 20.24 $/year | vs | 56.1 $/year | 2.8x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 73.58 $/year | vs | 159.62 $/year | 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Marginally newer | Jun, 2013 | vs | Oct, 2012 | Release date 7 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| Higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.4 GHz | Around 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 3.9 GHz | Around 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 10,147 | vs | 3,086.9 | More than 3.2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.74 GHz | vs | 3.93 GHz | More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better performance per dollar | 4.85 pt/$ | vs | 4.15 pt/$ | More than 15% better performance per dollar | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.98 GHz | vs | 4.19 GHz | Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4770 vs FX 8350
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.
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i7 4770 | vs | FX 8350 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 4.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Octa core | |
| Is unlocked | No | 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 | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4600 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,200 MHz | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1866 | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 29,866.66 MB/s | |
details | Core i7 4770 | 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 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.93 GHz | 4.74 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.19 GHz | 4.98 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 3,086.9 | 10,147 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.93 GHz | 4.74 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 84W | 125W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 20.24 $/year | 56.1 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 73.58 $/year | 159.62 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 15.33 pt/W | 5.32 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 68.25W | 159.66W | |
 Intel Core i7 4770  Report a correction |  AMD FX 8350 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $200 | $240 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 4670K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $340 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i7 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $230 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 3570K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $330 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i7 3770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $160 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs 8320 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | $200 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 4570 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | ||
| AMD FX 8350 vs A10 7850K | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $47 | $117 | |
| Intel Celeron E3300 vs Core2 Duo E4600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $340 | ||
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||
| | VS | |
| $240 | $340 | |
| Intel Core i5 4670K vs i7 4770K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $281 | |
| Intel Core i5 3230M vs 4200U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $340 | $332 | |
| Intel Core i7 4770K vs I7 4820k | ||
| | VS | |
| $200 | $240 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i5 4670K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | $378 | |
| Intel Core i7 4700HQ vs 4700MQ | ||
