CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 860 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?

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
AMD FX 8350 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 8350  based on its .

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
Front view of AMD FX 8350

AMD FX 8350

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 860

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 860

Report a correction
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Much more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Slightly lower annual home energy cost 53.98 $/year vs 56.1 $/year Around 5% lower annual home 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
Much higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 2.8 GHz Around 45% higher clock speed
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.46 GHz More than 20% higher turbo clock speed
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Newer manufacturing process 32 nms vs 45 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
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
Significantly better PassMark score 9,134 vs 5,091 Around 80% better PassMark score
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,525 vs 1,218 More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 12,153 vs 8,115 Around 50% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Marginally newer Oct, 2012 vs Jul, 2009 Release date over 3 years later
Better performance per dollar 5.47 pt/$ vs 4.02 pt/$ More than 35% better performance per dollar
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.7 GHz vs 4.19 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better 3DMark11 physics score 6,880 vs 5,850 Around 20% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 22,674 vs 16,598 More than 35% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.99 GHz vs 4.3 GHz More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 860 vs FX 8350

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i7 860
7,321
FX 8350
10,994

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i7 860
5,850
FX 8350
6,880
Core i7 860 FX 8350 @ community.futuremark.com
The FX-8350 also gave us some significant gains in 3DMark 11.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Cinebench R11.5

FX 8350
6.94
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)

FX 8350
1.11

Passmark

Core i7 860
5,091
FX 8350
9,134
Core i7 860 FX 8350 @ cpubenchmark.net
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)

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i7 860
1,218
FX 8350
1,525
Curious about real world scenarios, we decided to drop Furmark and ran 3DMark 11 on the performance preset and took the maximum power consumption during the first GPU test.
FX 8350 | by Legit Reviews (Oct, 2012)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 860  vs
FX 8350 
Clock speed 2.8 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.46 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1156
AM3+
Is unlocked No 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
SSE2
FMA4
F16C
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 21,333.32 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

Core i7 860  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 45 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclock popularity 130 709
Overclocked clock speed 4.19 GHz 4.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.3 GHz 4.99 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.19 GHz 4.7 GHz

power consumption

TDP 95W 125W
Annual home energy cost 53.98 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 157.68 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 3.91 pt/W 5.1 pt/W
Idle power consumption 85.4W 92W
Peak power consumption 180W 182.21W
Typical power consumption 156.35W 159.66W
Intel Core i7 860
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus