CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4770 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

8.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 4770 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4770  based on its single-core performance and power consumption.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 4770

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4770

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 159.66W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.8x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly better geekbench 3 AES single core score 4,500,000 MB/s vs 2,470,000 MB/s More than 80% better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 72.72 °C vs 61 °C Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly better performance per watt 11.01 pt/W vs 5.85 pt/W Around 90% better performance per watt
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 13,342 vs 11,483 More than 15% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Newer Jun, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 7 months later
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 clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.9 GHz Around 10% higher turbo 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 (Air) 4.73 GHz vs 3.86 GHz Around 25% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.04 GHz Around 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Significantly better performance per dollar 8.32 pt/$ vs 3.37 pt/$ Around 2.5x better performance per dollar

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4770 vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770
13,342
FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770
3,514
FX 8350
2,193

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770
4,500,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770
13,074
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770
14,063
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i7 4770
14,063
FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 4770
9,523
FX 8350
9,134

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i7 4770
2,029
FX 8350
1,525

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

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
EM64T
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 11.01 pt/W 5.85 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W

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 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.86 GHz 4.73 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.04 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 3,086.9 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.86 GHz 4.73 GHz

integrated graphics

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
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i7 4770
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus