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!

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
Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD FX 8350 vs the Intel Core i7 4770K.

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

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770K
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770K
4,810,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770K
FX 8350

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770K
FX 8350


Core i7 4770K
FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 4770K
FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 4770K  vs FX 8350 




7.8 Out of 10
7.9 Out of 10

Specifications Full list of technical specs


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


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

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
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s


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


Overclock popularity 205 709
Overclock review score 1 0.95
Overclocked clock speed 4.48 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.55 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,694.4 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.48 GHz 4.69 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 11.31 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 159.66W
Intel Core i7 4770K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 25 comments.
mate dont argue with this amd fan boy. although your dreams have been answered. 3 years later (now) we have the holy grail the ryzen 7 series
The 8350 has 8 cores but they are 2 cores per module and each module has to share resources. So there are 4 modules altogether. When at full load the 8350 derps because it has to make sure that each core shares the module equally making each core less efficient than they would be if they didn't have to share.
That isn't the 4770k.
But games don't even benefit from HT which is what like 80% of the people on here are all stuck on about. Sure Vivek is 100% wrong on everything else but the single core performance is good enough to not bottleneck high end cards and allow for very pleasurable gaming and multitasking. As for the smoking it at half its pice is utter bullshit. As for the "programs will utilize more cores" that is up to developers and how well IPC management with multiple cores is perfected lol.
Not hyper threading at all bud. Nor is there anything with intel or AMD called "pre hyper threaded". The CPU either has the ability on the architecture or not with a choice on intel to disable or enable it. The 8xxx series AMD chips have 4 Modules NOT to be confused with cores! Each modules has TWO ... I repeat TWO cores...2x4 = ? 8 yes eight cores my friend. The benefit to this is no virtual core will ever in the right mind beat a physical core, one simply physically exists the other is just really smart coding and IPC management in the CPU itself (Honestly the best thing to relate this to is an illusion). Here is the catch, each module and pair of cores on the 8 core FX chips share resources and cache, this can be good when working on similar task where information is relative to the task. This is useless with single threaded task where yes undoubtedly the Intel fan boys are correct how an I5 will trade blow for blow and an I7 will murder the 8350 due to their massive lead in single core performance(note hyper threading is virtually unless in pun intended). The issue is very few games or programs utilize past four cores making the 8350 just a really good multi tasker, or budget rending/ streaming cpu. As one of the commenters said above 9/10 times most people have way more CPU than they need or realize they have and synthetic benchmarks are a poor indicator of real life usage or performance. I have a fx 9590 basically a hand picked 8350 that has some minor tweaks and is super factory OC'd. It streams to twitch at 1080p 60 fps fine, it does not bottleneck my 980 ti and I can have honestly a ridiculous amounts of programs and tabs open, programs running on both monitors while i do College work and school work. Even renders videos pretty dam well for the price. It is not the worst CPU in the world and it sure isn't the best. It's price to performance, it was what it was made to be, it still is a dam good cpu and unless you are going to actually utilize what a 500-800$ High end intel will offer you. For high end gaming, moderate content creation on and below high end I7's are overkill. But the great thing is anyone is allowed to buy what fits their needs. This is not a socialist environment lol.
*core i7 is 50 to 100 euro more expensive and around 40 % better
poor Rating AMD is Best then intel .. i am using i 7 4770 k photoshop cc AMD fx 8350 work speed in amd fx 8350 .. so photo shop User must be by AMD .. BY
Personally I prefer i5-4460 over FX-8350, because the games that I play are mostly rely on single core performance, like Dota 2. i5-4460 can maintain very high fps and only minor fps drop when wars happen, but FX-8350 the fps will drop to around 85+. Of cause, if I close the fps value display, I won't feel any different at all when Dota 2 at 80+ fps vs 110+ fps, but still this is not something that I like. Choosing between this 2 processor very depend on how you gonna use it. For me I will go i5-4460. Well if you want me to relate my statement to this comparison chart which is i7-4770k vs FX-8350, well, I will save budget and go i7-4770k. I mean, if you asking about my choice, then this is my answer. I'm not giving advice/recommendation.
Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score10,147vs6,694.4AMD WINS!!!
puto Intel is only 3,367% more better :)
Like I said I don't have the problem you have, and if your cpu is really studdering then replace it. Obviously there is something wrong with just your cpu which could be a manufacturer defect
That is 100% wrong, and I'm not even an Intel fanboy. The 4770k beats the 8350 in single threaded AND multi-threaded. It says that right above. It's the first benchmark show. ("Benchmarked using all cores") Yes, the 8350 has some better instruction sets, but most normal people aren't even going to be using applications that take advantage of those. Also, you're acting like the 4770k only has 4 threads and the 8350 has 8 cores, and two threads per core. They're both 8 threaded CPUs. The 8350 has 8 phyiscal, 8 logical and the i7, has 4 physical and 8 logical. You also go on to list a bunch of numbers, but that doesn't change the fact that they are meaningless against one another. You're comparing two different architectures that aren't even remotely similar with numbers that can't be compared and by doing so, you're really only hurting your own argument. The only thing you're doing is ignoring the fact that the 8350 has to have more cache, a higher clock speed and a higher bus bit bandwidth speed to do less. 8350 - 8 core, 8 threads, more cache, 125W TDP, higher clock speed and larger manufacturing process 32nm. 4770k - 4 core, 8 threads, less cache, 84W TDP, lower clock speed, meaning is performs more IPC, which is more energy efficient and a smaller manufacturing process, 22nm. Intel's tech is just better, plain and simple. There's a reason they charge $350 for the i7 and AMD only charges $180. Most casual users won't utilize anything beyond an 8350 for most regular tasks. That's why this, "it does the same thing for less" mentality comes from. If you use the 4770k for any productivity, you will see a noticeable difference.
Again, it works fine when the CPU encoder preset is at a modest level. Once you try to put it up higher for tighter encoding and smaller files, meaning less upload required for better quality, there is CPU stuttering. It's directly linked to my CPU, nothing else. I don't have the problem either unless I try to set the CPU preset higher in OBS/Xsplit. My problem is I'm trying to do something with my CPU that it can't do that an i7 can, and that was my point.
Well I don't have that problem, never have, no matter the quality I use... sounds like you have other issues that seems to be causing your issue, not the CPU.... Just sayin...
No, there are no "logical cores" on AMD CPUs. They are all physically there, and they all work just fine. The problem is the CMT design that essentially causes Bulldozer and Piledriver to have half of the single core performance that an SMT core would have.
I said my 8350 stuttered WHEN STREAMING at a high CPU preset. My games play fine, but the minute I want to do anything other than just play games, like streaming to Twitch with a decent encoder preset, my 8350 derps. My friends' 4770k can stream great at the same settings with a more consistent framerate. Given, if I set my CPU encoder preset down, I don't experience stuttering, but then I'm sacrificing quality for more upload bandwidth, which I don't have.
It IS an ACTUAL 8 CORE PROCESSOR, it's not hyperthreaded, it even says that when you read cpu Boss's testing results. Just because windows says it's 4 Physcal cores doesn't mean that it is.... CPU Boss even reconizes the 8350 as 8 actual cores not 4! Get your facts straight!
Hell Yeah! Well said!
I'm with Jay0.... Hot? NO! Loud? Hell NO! And you said your 8350 studdered, well I run the 8350 and it has yet to studder or have any problems of any kind.
It doesn't come "pre-hyperthreaded", so please, quit trying to state "facts", do some actual research into how AMDs Bulldozer and Piledrivers architectures work before posting this crap. There are most definitely 8 physical cores inside an 8XXX series CPU from AMD. HYPERTHREADED IS EXCLUSIVE TO INTEL.
I have 6 computers right now. I have a problem. ._.
Hyperthreading is completely exclusive to Intel, it is a technology invented by Intel and not something that is available for AMD CPUs. There are indeed 8 physical cores in an 8XXX series CPU. Please do some actual research before trying to state 'facts'. A series APUs use the GCN architecture, which allows them to run threads on programs coded to work with the GPU cores on the APU, which is why high end A10 APUs can run 12 threads whilst only have 4 physical CPU cores.
Can you people actually do some research and not just immediately trust windows immensely faulty system for checking cores/threads. It checks the amount of LV2 Caches as the 'cores', and then threads as just CPU based reported threads. AMD CPUs use shares LV2 caches between sets of 2 cores. Meaning the 6300 has 3 x LV2 Caches, 6 physical cores, and 6 threads.
mejor ese octacore que ese quar dore de intel, como puyeden poner mejor nota al intel, jaja penoso la verdad
comments powered by Disqus