CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4790K 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

9.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 4790K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4790K  based on its 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 4790K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4790K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 71.5W vs 159.66W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 2,530 vs 1,525 More than 65% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost
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
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.72 GHz vs 4.64 GHz Almost the same
Much better performance per dollar 13.32 pt/$ vs 3.69 pt/$ More than 3.5x better performance per dollar
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4790K vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4790K
15,490
FX 8350
11,483

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350
2,193

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4790K
5,140,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4790K
15,465
FX 8350
10,956

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4790K
16,653
FX 8350
12,126

GeekBench

Core i7 4790K
16,653
FX 8350
12,796

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 4790K
11,197
FX 8350
9,134

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350
1,525

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 4790K  vs FX 8350 

8.0
6.0
When we set the Core i7-4790K to the same 3.5GHz base/3.9GHz Turbo clock speeds as the Intel Core i7-4770K, it ran a full 15 degrees cooler—50 degrees Celsius, compared with 65 degrees Celsius for the Intel Core i7-4770K.
Core i7 4790K

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4790K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 4 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.4 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Is unlocked Yes 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 88W 125W
Annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 11.41 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Typical power consumption 71.5W 159.66W

details

Core i7 4790K  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 - 74.04°C Unknown - 61°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.64 GHz 4.72 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.8 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,925.3 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.64 GHz 4.72 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 1,250 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 4790K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
I have a i7 4790k and a R9 390 gpu my system only cost 1000 dollars. i don't think 800 dollars is going to build a good computer when you can spend 200 more on an i7 if you really want a true computer CPU: i7 4790k 319.99USD GPU: XFX R9 390 DD 319.99USD RAM: 16GB 1600Mhz 79.99 SSD: 512GB 129.99USD PSU: 650watt gold 69.99USD yes i know my cost does not even out but i paid for a case and other things as well. my rig will last me for 2-3 years with out upgrading. "R9 490" So happy for this i am thinking about selling my R9 390 and buying the 490 i'm thinking about the 490x :D but back to the topic. intel is worth 55.4 billion so they can build better chips. AMD is worth just under 4 billion. come on guys go with the smarter choose if you are going to build a rig spend the 200 extra and buy an i7. dont give me they shit about how it cost 200 dollars more for an i7. but you have to know if you don.t put a i7 in your computer you will not be playing any upcoming games and less play time do to heat... the i7 always is the smarter way to go.
I can't really say you can make a comparison givin' the i7 is $200 more expensive. AMD has been budget for a while, FX is definitely budget performance. Compared to and i7. It's cheaper than an i5 even, but at $160, it maybe better to go i5 for a little more, that would be a better comparison. Yes Intel is better in this case, but it's $200 more dollars. I can say they are the same class, but they are on completely different levels. It's like a budget verses a high class elite CPU. If you can't afford a $1,500 computer, then you can build a FX system for like $800. Budget. That "typical power consumption" also seems ridicules. If you overclock it ya. I guess you probably will though, but then what with the i7! You are going to over clock that too I'm sure. I'm going have to look that up, seems unfair. These guys are known for a bias and incorrect info on certain pages. I don't know. Maybe.
well, I always used Intel Processors :) day have been good... now I have one toshiba L70-B-10R (i5-4200U AMD R7-200M) If Intel is the best why that dont give 70fps... but only 30FPS... if games only use 1/2 cores why buy a multi core... this is my 4th computer, 3 of them notebooks... My fist notebook with one Centino 1.6 with 64MB!!! (ATi R9700) dedicated grafics card that let me play every game for 5 years... Quality is quality but you all must remember one thing, games are optimizided only for some products and why... for sell at most priced :) why create so many processors with so many references if we only need one... ya!!! companies need to sell to stay on road... another thing I dont pass my all life playing :) ya I know... every person have the right to do what ever...!!! the same of what we have to buy or not :) end of game insert coin :)
Here in Canada the AMD FX8350 is priced at 259 and the Intel I7 4790k is at 559 so i don't really see that the Intel offers anything close to double the performance and will most likely go with the AMD in my next build ( the newer generation of Intel is quite a bit lower so that is still in consideration but this older generation is out of contention)
Casual Gaming= AMD Everything else = Intel Fixed that for you. Having owned both an AMD 8350, i5-6590k and now owning a i7-6790k, without a doubt stronger cores make a huge difference in a good majority of games. Obviously if you only play Call of Duty, Battlefield, puzzle games, old games and other unmodded AAA titles (GTA, Fallout/Skyrim to name a few) then you won't see a difference, but RTS games, modded games and a good amount of indies are largely CPU intensive...hell even the Sims has a distinct difference in performance between AMD and Intel. I used to love AMD when the only game I was really playing was Team Fortress 2 and a little Fallout New Vegas here and there. 200 games later and I'm glad I switched to Intel.
Some games are developed for Intel and some for AMD, if the game needs a high rendering time and process in quantity AMD its not a good option, that is why it is not good for render. CPU is used to render things that appear in screen, fast loading of data in RAM, the GPU is used to load textures on objects, i believe that massive processing its not recommended for AMD... but, in general its pretty good, the cost benefit is better in AMD than Intel, for Gaming, but, when you really need the processor AMD can't handle so well, so i recommend AMD for Gaming and Intel for rendering, things are just about cost benefit or user expectation, if money its not a problem Intel, otherwise AMD xDDD
Games like Planetside 2 are CPU intensive, and the #1 question asked in global chat by hundreds of thousands of users so far is "Why is this game so slow, my PC is new?" and then everybody always asks what processor they have and the answer is ALWAYS AMD. AMD works great in games that rely heavily on the GPU (graphics) only, but some games also require that the CPU do some work, and when you play them with an AMD you'll really really notice how far the CPU lags behind Intel. Generally the rule is that if you're a gamer, you want Intel, because when games do require CPU, then you'll find that your AMD is lacking, where an Intel CPU would deliver.
WHAT??. "Games = Amd"?, Intel cpus are much much better at gaming than Amd's , because amd cpus sucks when 4 or less cpus are used at the same time, but when you play games, only 2 or 3 cores will be used, so amd cpus are not good at gaming but rendering etc, because then it can use all of its cores your statement is super wrong
http://imagescdn.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/5/8/58_53_core_i7_4770k_vs_amd_fx_8350_with_gtx_980_vs_gtx_780_sli_at_4k.png http://i1.wp.com/www.technologyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fx-8370-vs-5960x_gaming-pcars_gtx960.jpg?zoom=3&resize=618%2C396 http://i2.wp.com/www.technologyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fx-8370-vs-5960x_gaming-witcher3_gtx970.jpg?zoom=3&resize=618%2C396 http://i1.wp.com/www.technologyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fx-8370-vs-5960x_gaming-crysis3_gtx970-sli.jpg?zoom=3&resize=618%2C396
That's why i said it's buggy. It's more accurate when the CPU is on full stress or load. Also, what im i doing on the picture above? xD
Games = Amd Rendering, 3D work, etc... = Intel but intel now its awesome for gaming too since last 2 years, i can tell its better than AMD in some cases, so Intel its expensive and very good for gaming and excellent for rendering
Yeah ummm no. A. This game is garbage and doesn't use the threads like a proper DX12 game should. B. API tests prove different. No one is saying a AMD is better than Intel, but every reviewer loves to stomp on them. Competition is a good thing. However, so many people have fallen into the Intel is king mentality. Just like in the Athlon days you guys still won't admit AMD is a strong competitor when they finally get their head out of their ass.
DX12 is going to be a game changer as the FX isn't much behind this $400 chip. Single core performance will be a thing of the past. The FX will not surpass the 4790, but for less than half the price will keep up pretty damn well.
This is also ANOTHER myth. The core temps are not read faulty they just aren't accurate until about 30*C. The CPU socket temp which is what matters in power consumption is accurate 100% of the time.
I love how many ignorant fanboys there are down here...
i dont like monopoly.. i am not a fanboy, i am a wise costumer.. and i demand competition on both sides.. just because one game shows bad dx12 performance on FX cpus doesnt mean they should be thrown away.. i wanna see whats more in store for te FX owners.. i am sure there is something worthwhile... 6300 is a good bang for the buck processor and i do most of my rendering on it.. i wanna squeeze more out of it before i say good bye
Why? You're totally fine with your 4690K, is almost twice more powerful. So why worried about your FX6300?
yep, seen that... if that happens to be true then the people who own FX processors are totally fucked... i own a 4690k and a 6300... and i wish to squeeze a lil more out of the 6300..... i hope microsoft does somthing abt this
Or not... Source: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/DX12-GPU-and-CPU-Performance-Tested-Ashes-Singularity-Benchmark/Results-Avera
That temp is wrong. The termometer on FX CPU's is buggy and give false positive.
DX12 might change things since it will spread load to all cores making AMD 8 cores relevant again
$=AMD Gamers prefer I-7 4790 Everyone else AMD FX8350 Since I don't game, guess which one I prefer?
A few thing's need to be corrected, The average power usages for the AMD FX8350 are well out of preportion, CPU Boss isn't even taking into consideration the power saving features on offer by the cpu manufacturer and the motherboard manufacturer. You can stil utilise this cpu chip effectivelly if your smart about it. AMD Cool n quiet cuts the cpu frequency right down when the cpu is idling i have the FX8350 and i am only using firefox and at the moment the cpu is operating at 1.4 ghz when idling this therefore means your not going to be pulling out the full 125 watts for stock clocks, well under to be precise. So really some revised corrections do need to be made. Motherboards do have advanced power control utilisation for cpu chips these days too.
Tek Syndicate did a video comparing an Amd rig to a Intel/Nvidia rig and Crysis was the only game Amd had a higher frame rate In.
The fact crysis 3 scales to 8 cores and amd cpus still lose is pathetic.
comments powered by Disqus