Winner
Intel Core i7 4770K
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4770K based on its performance and single-core performance.
See full details| | Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 8350 |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Is hyperthreaded Yes |
| | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms | | Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W |
by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2013)The AMD A10-5800K APU hasn't been in the lead in any benchmark yet, but here we can see that it excels in graphics and had an overall score in Fire Strike of 1098, which is 20% faster than the new Intel Core i7-4770K processor.
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Higher clock speed 4 GHz |
| | Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz | | More cores 8 |
by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)Having eight cores at 4GHz is impressive, after all it wasn't that long ago that we were striving to break 4GHz when overclocking.
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Core i7 4770K 8.8 FX 8350 8.1 | |
| Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Core i7 4770K 9.8 FX 8350 8.1 | |
| 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? | |
| Core i7 4770K 9.3 FX 8350 9.9 | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Core i7 4770K 6.6 FX 8350 7.4 | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
| Core i7 4770K 9.1 FX 8350 8.2 | |
Winner |
Intel Core i7 4770KCPUBoss Winner | | |
| |||||||
| 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 $/year | 2.2x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Better PassMark score | 10,016 | vs | 9,134 | Around 10% better PassMark score | |||
| Marginally newer | Jun, 2013 | vs | Oct, 2012 | Release date 7 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.5 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 3.9 GHz | Around 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 10,147 | vs | 6,694.4 | More than 50% better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Better performance per dollar | 5.25 pt/$ | 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) | |||
Core i7 4770K | by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2013)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.
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.
Core i7 4770K | by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2013)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.
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.
| Core i7 4770K | vs | FX 8350 | ||
| 7.0 | 6.0 | Core i7 4770K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.0 | 8.0 | FX 8350 | |
Overall | 7.8 Out of 10 | 7.9 Out of 10 | ||
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 | AMD FX 8350 |
| VS | |
| $249 | $325 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $340 | $325 | |
| 4790K vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $235 | $325 | |
| 4670K vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $195 | $325 | |
| 4790 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $235 | $175 | |
| 4670K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $330 | $175 | |
| 3770K vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $143 | $175 | |
| 8320 vs 8350 | ||
| VS | |
| $249 | $325 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $161 | $225 | |
| N3530 vs 3110M | ||
| VS | |
| $340 | $325 | |
| 4790K vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| N2830 vs 3217U | ||
| VS | |
| $97 | $281 | |
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 4700MQ vs 5750M | ||
| VS | |
| 800 vs 5 Octa | ||