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 6700K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 6700K

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 73.94W vs 159.66W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,349 vs 1,525 Around 55% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year vs 159.62 $/year 2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better PassMark score 11,109 vs 9,134 More than 20% better PassMark score
Newer Jul, 2015 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 2 years 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
Much better performance per dollar 8.15 pt/$ vs 0.91 pt/$ Around 9x better performance per dollar
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 (Water) 8.79 GHz vs 4.77 GHz Around 85% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better performance per watt 5.72 pt/W vs 3.49 pt/W Around 65% better performance per watt

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 6700K vs FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
6,010 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
FX 8350


Core i7 6700K
FX 8350

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i7 6700K
FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 6700K
FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 8350

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i7 6700K  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 4 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 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

power consumption

TDP 91W 125W
Annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 3.49 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Typical power consumption 73.94W 159.66W


Core i7 6700K  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 14 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 64°C Unknown - 61°C


Overclocked clock speed 4.61 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.77 GHz 8.79 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.61 GHz 4.69 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 530 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 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
Intel Core i7 6700K
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.
Hahahahaha I always say that Intel is like an iPhone in CPUs. true!
Undervolt it. That's what I always do unless your overclocking of course.
True in my case.. Had the 8350 for a while and just ordered a prebuilt from cyberpower with no holding back because.... i now have money :D GTX1080 and I7 6700k incoming
8.79 GHz water cooled, srsly? YMMV, but I've been underwhelmed with the 8350's water cooled overclocking abilities. Mine is not stable using factory settings for air-cooled and it's water cooled.
I just came from several other CPU bench sites, as I never view just one search result...The Internet's a big place after all!
It's the same in bois also don't matter the program speed fan, core temp, AIDA 64 all the same tamps or 1 to 2 degrees off
This is wrong temperatures, try a different program Please
I agree with with you 100%
In what country do you live ?
No, not a typo
No, it's NOT true, which is why I replied.
You know it's true, that's why you replied.
I've got a Hyper 212 Evo on my FX-8350. Even when maxed out for BOINC or when running games, it never climbs above 50 C. I won't dispute that the Core i7 (such as the Skylake and nearly all of the i7's from the last two years) is a better CPU. But the FX-8350 came out nearly three years before the 6700K and is still good by comparison (I think Passmark shows it at 80% of the 6700K).
That's not true at all. My last system I built was with an FX-8350, and I was prepared to drop a bundle. The AMD route gave me the motherboard I wanted (Asus Sabertooth 990FX Gen 3 Rev 2.0) and a solid performer. As far as performance per dollar, the FX-8350 is still a good performer. I would only recommend the Skylake route over it because it's newer and there's probably more longevity in that newer socket.
"Overclock Speed (water) - 8.79GHz" - Typo???
think you need a better case setup and some fan's cuz mine never above 35C while gaming
But, you know, AMD stuff kinda likes to overheat a lot. Especially if you live in Australia... I'm upgrading from AMD to Intel for that reason. Don't get me wrong, the FX-8350 is a good CPU, as a matter of fact I've had one for a while now, but it tends to enjoy getting around 40-50c while idle, and up in the 70s when gaming.
Yes, I don't believe CPUBoss anymore.
The graphs are inconsistent. The performance graph lists 4790k on this page as 7.7 score, yet has it at 9.4 on the dedicated 4790k page. Additionally, the graphs show 4790k as superior to the 6700k, when raw benchmarks elsewhere clearly show that the processors are fairly neck-and-neck, with the 6700k edging out the 4790k by 4-8%. These issues alone make me now question the results reported by CPUBoss, which sucks...
If you have money, you buy Intel. If you are poor, you buy AMD. It's simple.
Yea I'd rather wait for AMD Zen architecture than give money for an overly expensive CPU from Intel, I wouldn't buy the 6700k unless I got a 50% off deal or something.
Been with amd for 8 years just changed my fx8320e and got an i7 6700k and I can see its a lot better in gaming with doing the same tests with gtx970 I get about 80% boost in everything only upgraded because got an amazing deal on cpu, would recommend people to get i7 or hold out for amds new cpus as fx are good but they have no ddr4 or pci3 so other parts of pc do suffer
over all the AMD FX 8350 is better this is mostly rating useless things such as intergrated graphics, intel intergrated graphics are worthless, if you are a serious gamer and want more bang for your buck and better overclock speeds AMD is the way to go, all the way. Intel is like apple its fun to say you own one but its kind of worthless.
yes, they will work, especially if you get the asus z170 p - d3
comments powered by Disqus