CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4770K vs 8350

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more

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 4770K 

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

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 4770K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i7 4770K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 4770K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4770K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
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 2,165 vs 1,525 More than 40% 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 cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,718 vs 4,338 Around 80% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Significantly better performance per watt 13.14 pt/W vs 5.05 pt/W More than 2.5x better performance per watt
Better 3DMark11 physics score 9,140 vs 6,880 Around 35% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 15,862 vs 12,153 More than 30% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Much lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.8x lower annual home energy cost
Better cinebench r11.5 score 8.14 vs 6.94 More than 15% better cinebench r11.5 score
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better PassMark score 10,016 vs 9,134 Around 10% better PassMark score
Marginally 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
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 15% 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 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 6,694.4 More than 50% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Better performance per dollar 5.25 pt/$ vs 3.4 pt/$ Around 55% better performance per dollar
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.7 GHz vs 4.47 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.99 GHz vs 4.66 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4770K vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i7 4770K
14,340
FX 8350
10,993

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 8350
6,880
Core i7 4770K FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com
Futuremark 3DMark has three primary benchmark tests that you can run and which test you should be running depends on the system that you are benchmarking on.
Core i7 4770K | by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2013)

Cinebench R11.5

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 R11.5 (Single Core)

Passmark

Core i7 4770K
10,016
FX 8350
9,134
Core i7 4770K FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net
If you look closer at the results for Cloud Gate you'll see that AMD won in the graphics tests, but lost in the Physics test, so Futuremark 3DMark must have more weight on the physics test than the GPU test in this test scenario.
Core i7 4770K | by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2013)

Passmark (Single Core)

FX 8350
1,525
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)

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 4770K  vs FX 8350 

7.0
6.0
Peak floating point instruction throughput has doubled, to 32 FLOPs per clock per core, up from 16 (single-precision), and 16 double-precision FLOPs per core, up from eight.
Core i7 4770K

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

Overall

7.8 Out of 10
7.9 Out of 10

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4770K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
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
FMA3
SSE2
FMA4
EM64T
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 1,250 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 4770K  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

Overclock popularity 205 709
Overclock review score 1 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.47 GHz 4.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.66 GHz 4.99 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,694.4 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.47 GHz 4.7 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 13.14 pt/W 5.05 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W
Intel Core i7 4770K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
Bullshit , why would you own two pcs ? My roommate has a gtx 840 or some shit and a i5 4670k I have gtx 970 sli and amd fx 8350 , both 8gb Ram , both stock , he borrowed my 970 and we had benchmark , every benchmark , my fx won , not een one benchmark was betteron the i5
They're both great processors. AMD is cheaper and slightly slower. I have the 4770k and i build an 8320 system for a family member. It's really not a night and day comparison. More of a mid morning to Noon comparison. That 8320 is faster than my i7 920 though noticeably.
The amd is one of the top processors for a very cheap price and I know that this is kind of old but i just wanted to point out that all of these benchmark sites are testing the same games and not everyone is getting all of their info correct. Please check this video out and you will see that with several games and in streaming the fx-8350 not only beats the i5 and the i7 but it smashes it. Each processor is good for certain situations, but for the buck you are getting the most value out of the amd 8350. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE&index=6&list=WL
The Intel i5 2430M is physically a 2 core CPU but because of Intel's hyper threading it's a logically 4 core CPU. I have an AMD A8 in another laptop which probably has 4 physical cores even if the clockspeed is lower. I noticed that both CPUs handle multiple task okay but Windows 8 (the AMD A8) seems to make Multitasking not so hard for the CPU even with a true quad core CPU that's not using hyper threading. Windows 7 (the Intel i5) seems to not utilize what it can.
lol, i run a Phenom II 6 core, and its 6 cores / 6 threads....
There's more to it than the number of cores. The Intel i7-4770K does with 4 cores (and hyper-threading) what it takes the FX-8350 eight cores to do. The FX-8350 is a good processor, especially considering it costs less than Intel's entry-level i5 CPUs which it outperforms by quite a large margin in multi-threaded applications. But games being written to support 8 cores isn't going to make the FX-8350 perform twice as well as an i5-4670K or i7-4770K... games supporting 8 cores is the minimum needed to make the FX-8350 perform comparably to an i5-4670K or i7-4770K. But realistically speaking, games are either 1-2 threads, or infinite threads. Games will be entirely one thread, or have a mainthread & a secondary thread, or have a mainthread and other tasks will be spread out over virtually endless amounts of cores (task will be assigned to whichever thread has the shortest queue of tasks). And games that use more than 2 cores run almost identically on an FX-8350 as they do on an i5-4670K, with the Intel i5 and i7 almost always pulling ahead by just a couple frames due to them running the mainthread a bit faster. The FX-8350 is plenty powerful enough to not encounter a bottleneck in any modern game, aside from those using only 1-2 cores almost exclusively. I'm not quite sure where people are getting this idea that the FX-8350 is suddenly going to be twice as effective as Intel CPUs... look at the benches, while not 100% indicative of real-world performance, you can see that it takes the FX-8350 using ALL eight cores to get similar performance to the Intel using just four cores. Each of Intel's cores are about 45% faster, varying depending on the specific workload and calculations being done. The FX-8350 is fine, and is better than anything at its price point... but it's in almost no way better than the i7-4770K, and most real-world situations would be significantly faster on the 4770K (gaming excluded, since games use a fixed amount of CPU power and doesn't take full utilisation like something such as rendering does) simply because most multi-threaded apps still benefit from higher single-threaded performance. This is because not all tasks are constantly full spread out over every core, and occasionally the CPU has less to do resulting in a more single-threaded workload and that's where an Intel chip pulls significantly ahead. Each individual task is completed much faster on an Intel CPU, so any time there are gaps where one thread very briefly doesn't have something to do, the Intel CPU gets more done in that time than an AMD CPU (speaking of recent generations).
heh. AMD doesn't suck people, but if your honestly comparing an amd to an intel chip your just wrong sadly, price always being most important so AMD will always have fans and why not, they get the job done for gaming. Not everyone video edits etc, etc.. As for FPS yes 5 to 10 is correct and as long as your getting a steady 40 (not 30) then yes AMD is the better choice. This like comparing peckers on here sometimes and honestly get what ya like. I keep hearing AMD fanboys, but their are allot of Intel fanboys and if you go in the past AMD did a shitty job in the beginning so being a fan of AMD was hard unless you were retarded. I used intel and AMD over the years and I found AMD was enough for me. Intel is wonderful. I own a intel 2 quad and it still rocks. Graphic cards btw.. amd is the better choice but like I said unless your retarded. I got a r9 295x2 and it's awesome beyound expectations and a 9590 water cooled. (ITS GOTTA BE WATER COOLED!) I didn't care it was worth it now getting a steady AMD 5ghz at 52c on prime after 20 hrs.
The amount of bullshit you are sprouting is hilarious. You might want to look into the actual design of the bulldozer architecture and how computer work before you make yourself look like even more of a colossal moron than you already have.
the single perfomance part is just bulshit, nothing is this century uses this crap codeing, only these intel CPU boss caped benchs
fx is half the price and 10% ~ 15% poor than i7(wining whit memory part), for gaming is just perfect, but if u want to win in every benchmark crush your money apart whint intel
Intel Core i7 4770K is faster than AMD FX 8350 but just in single threading. AMD FX 8350 has more instructions such as XOP, SSE4a and FMA4 and it has 8 cores. Why do you think that AMD FX 8350 isn't hyper Threaded? you should mention that AMD FX 8350 has 2 cores in one Module and each HT Link is for one module ( not for one core). 4 HT Links are divided between 8 cores which means each two core has one HT Link. AMD FX 8350 has 1200 million transistors for each core and 9600 million for all cores but Intel core i7 4770K has 1400 million for each core and 5600 million for all. 9600>5600 AMD FX 8350 has 2 * 128 bit FMACs for each core but Intel Core i7 8350 has 1 * 128 bit FMAC for each core. AMD FX 8350 is running at 4.0 GHz but Intel Core i7 4770K is running at 3.5 GHz. AMD FX 8350 has 7 MB more L2 Cache than Intel Core i7 4770K. AMD FX 8350 has 384 KB of L1 Cache but Intel Core i7 4770K has 256 KB. AMD FX 8350 is much more effective than Intel Core i7 4770K in the future Apps because of its instructions and 8 cores working together. Normal people think that Intel Core i7 4770K is faster because they don't know whats the difference between single threading and multi threading. AMD FX 8350 is the future of multi tasking.
I have 2 computers one is the amd8350 then my newest one is the intel 4770k both have the 290x amd video card in it. Both computers handle games no problem like BF4 both hit above 60 fps but when i want to render something the intell blows the amd away. I have always liked amd mostly because the price for performance so for a gamer I would get amd all day but for my work load rendering I have to say intel has the edge buy a lot
It is not hyperthreaded... There are actually 8 physical cores, but they are paired...resulting in 4 MODULES x 2 CORES=8PHYSICAL CORES, 8 LOGICAL. What Windows recognizes is the number of FPUs on a CPU, because that's what OSs use the most. The FX CPUs are modular, meaning each pair of two cores, share one unit of cache, and one FPU(Floating Point Unit). That's why they show up as quad-cores. Now when we get to multi-threaded things, let's start off with 8 threads that need to be done. i7: Each core acts as two, so each core has 2 tasks to do. FX: Each module assigns one task for each core, so it's easier for the FX to finish them. Yet, we see that the 4770K is faster in most of the tasks. That's because AMD's architecture needs to be updated, and it would be a shame if AMD gave up developing it. There are rumors, saying that AMD will launch(although not predicted on roadmap) Excavator FX chips in 2015, with an improved architecture. But the fact that FXs manage to keep up with newest intel chips, is pretty good isn't it? You have to agree here. They're slower, they draw more power, but they're OK for their price, and as a home user, i don't see any reason to just put AMD out of equation for new builds. Try not to be biased fanboys, and analyze the situation from all angles. Good luck! :)
You do know for a fact that the FX-8350 comes PRE-HYPERTHREADED right? Intel Core I7 let's you choose if you want it to be hyperthreaded or not. If you don't believe me and you have any bulldozer CPU's? Go press and hold the Windows Key and Tap the R key. Type msinfo32 on the search bar and you'll see 4 Physical cores and 8 logical cores. This means its HYPERTHREADED. Single core performance is better because when you stack all those awesome single core performances? It'll be better than the 8350!
You guys have to understand that there's no such thing as 8 physical cores. These AMD Bulldozers come in PREHYPERHREADED Hold the Windows Key and tap R. Type in MSINFO32 and you'll see 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores. This means it's HYPERTHREADED!
I wonder how this CPU is going to do after the I7 4790K comes out lol.
Jett is right, I just looked myself and I have a FX-6300. It says 3 physical cores, 6 logical processors. If I had known that I'd have saved for the i5-4670k.
Bulldozer and it's familty aren't meant for heavy task. Instead bulldozer was designed to run many weak threads, in a multi-threaded-friendly kernel. Bulldozer is running with a core technology called CMT (Cluster core, essentially what AMD calls modules). In basics it is a core with duplicated integer and memory pipelines. (SR Added additional decoders). So if one of the core inside this "module" come under heavy workload, the performance of the other core in the same module will fall, as the front-end is been the limiting factor. To be perfectly clear, The fx 8320/50 is NOT an true 8 core. It is an Quad core, with CMT technology.
ok intel i7 4770k gives you the choice to hyperthread, amd fx 8350 or any other bulldozer architecture cpu comes pre hyperthreaded so please and this is coming from a amd fanboy, please for the love of god stop talking about the fx having 8 actual cores. every bulldozer chip fx and A series come PRE HYPERTHREADED, it's a fact no matter any damn excuse you come up with. 8 physical core does not exist yet so shut up about it.if you don't believe me and you have either a A6-A10 or any FX chip hold the start key down then tap r, type msinfo32 into the box and read for yourself. it will say 4 physical cores 8 logical processors. HYPERTHREADED!
ok intel i7 4770k gives you the choice to hyperthread, amd fx 8350 or any other bulldozer architecture cpu comes pre hyperthreaded so please and this is coming from a amd fanboy, please for the love of god stop talking about the fx having 8 actual cores. every bulldozer chip fx and A series come PRE HYPERTHREADED, it's a fact no matter any damn excuse you come up with. 8 physical core does not exist yet so shut up about it.if you don't believe me and you have either a A6-A10 or any FX chip hold the start key down then tap r, type msinfo32 into the box and read for yourself. it will say 4 physical cores 8 logical processors. HYPERTHREADED!
When you think about it as well the 8350 is more expensive then the 4770k as for the energy usage is significantly higher. My computer is not on the entire day buy a good portion fo it and when i am using it I am playing cpu intensive games or rendering video or both at the same time. Now unless you live with you mom which is probably the case for plenty you have to pay the bills and expecting that i plan to keep my 4770k for about a three year life span by the time i am done with it ill have more money in my bank and a better processor for the years that i use it plus intel has a better track record for retaining value. Side note for people to change to an 8350 the tdp is higher to the point where they might even need to buy a larger Psu and that's without overclocking. Going from an over clocking point of view the i7 wwould pay the difference in price from the 8350 in less then half of a year.
You are the one who is messing thigs up dude. First, the chips that are actually made for HEAVY tasks such as rendering or heavy calculations are the intel ones. I will not say that AMD processors are not good, in fact, I think they are great for gaming and if you really want to take the best out of a processor and you have a restricted budget AMD is a great choice. Its not that 4 "people each working on 2 problems is the same as having 8 people working on 8 problems". "Do you even know what you're talking about?" sound familiar? The tinh is that the performance is more like 8 people working vs 4 WELL TRAINED people working. I saw how an i74770k @ stock speed with stock cooling performed better than a fully clocked 8350 with water cooling on some games using a msi Geforce gtx 770. The 8350 did pretty good, there is no reason to not say it, in fact, in some games it got pretty close to the i7. The thing is that, in general, AMD are capable enough to get better "performance" (not performace as it is, but something like better max fps. Its really hard to choose the precise words for me right now) than intel proessors in particular games when maxed out, but intel processors are more "stable" and have more "smooth performance" (more stables fps for example). I think that it would be more fair to compare the i54670k with the 8350, but regarding that, if you are just focusing on gaming AMD should be enough for you BUT, if you are doing more that that, you should go for intel. PS: I forgot to mention that intel has WAY better performance on "regular task" (every day usage) and beat AMD on reading and writting since they have better single threaded performance and this task usually dont use more than one or two cores and having more will be just pointless.
Wrong buddy. The FX 8350 has 4 MODULES. Each module is made out of 2 PHYSICAL, so yeah, they are 8 REAL cores. The drawback although, is the fact that the cores in one module of the FX are sharing the cache, and other resources. No doubt i7 is better than the 8350, but it's not like i7 renders something in 30 secs, and FX does it in 4 hours.... But, comparing the i7 with the FX, is kinda stupid imho. The price gap between them is huge, and i don't think that the i7 is worth over the FX, unless you really, really need every possible point of performance. The FX is doing a really nice job, keeping up with the latest Intel architecture, so we have to give AMD some credit for creating some very good chips. I'll stick to AMD since in gaming, the differences between FX, i5, and i7 are like 5-10 FPS, but it depends on the GPU. In some cases, the FX 8350 beats the i5 4670K in multi-threaded games like BF3/4, i saw FarCry 3, favouring the FX, same goes for Crysis 3. For me, it is more than enough, for 1080p. It depends on the user, wether to go with Intel, or AMD. My recommendation is: Go AMD if you want to invest more in a graphics card. There will be no bottleneck. Good luck out there! :D
Ok, 8350 literally has 4 TRUE cores, and I guess you can say it too, is hyperthreaded in AMD's world because it has 8 threads, but only 4 PHYSICAL processors.
Wow. So much fanboy. I am a very long time AMD user. But recently, in planning to build a new system, I have considered doing an intel box. Looking at benchmarks, and having done more than my fair share of benchmarking many systems over the years, I can honestly say, they're a good rule of thumb, on paper - but nothing beats real world use of a machine to get a feel for how good they are, for the tasks you more frequently use. Single core performance is not as important as having more physical cores, if multitasking is what you need, and don't give me this HT is the same *insert expletive*. Sorry, but a virtual core is exactly that, virtual. It is not the same, and not everything can or will address it effectively. How it shows up in Windows, is only a matter of driver programming, and potentially useless on another platform. Not saying it is, just saying there is no substitute for the real deal imho. Now that's out of the way, I'll just say, in this day and age, benchmarks are becoming less important. Both of these processors are well and truly more than capable for most peoples needs. If not overkill for most people, and further to that, I would put money on the fact that most people (without looking for a intel or amd sticker on the tower, or checking system properties etc) wouldn't know the difference if you sat them at one. For myself, I think I will stick to AMD. Cheaper, every bit as good for most things that I need, and I know them like back of my hand. I'll give intel further consideration when their upgrade path is a little clearer. Three socket types says to me I have a one in three chance, of picking one that isn't a dead line, and that doesn't greatly excite me. Besides, my kids 8350 that I helped him knock together beats the crap out of my little old Phenom 2 965, but even it does run all games I play, and runs all the tasks I need fairly well - including VM's. You have to ask yourself, how much power do you really need? - I think to many get caught up in keeping up with the Jones's.
comments powered by Disqus