CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-8300 and the AMD FX-8350 are two end-of-life desktop processors from different eras, yet they land in the same performance tier according to aggregated benchmark data. The FX-8350, a 2012 eight-core Vishera part, and the i3-8300, a 2018 Coffee Lake quad-core, both hold a 39th percentile ranking among all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the i3-8300 at 1564 and the FX-8350 at 1557, a difference of less than half a percent. This places both chips in the company of the AMD Opteron 6276, which scores 1560, and the Intel Core i3-9300 at 1554, according to the nearestRivals data. The core counts and architectures could not be more different, yet the overall performance picture is remarkably close, making this a comparison of design philosophies rather than raw generational superiority.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The available benchmark results for these two CPUs do not overlap in test suites, so a direct per-test comparison is impossible. However, the data we do have reveals distinct performance profiles. The i3-8300 has been tested in the Cinebench suite, while the FX-8350 has Geekbench results. The i3-8300 scores 545 in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 76 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 2271 multi-core and 320 single-core, and in R23, it achieves 5408 multi-core and 763 single-core. These scores show a consistent ratio where the multi-core performance is roughly seven times the single-core score, which is expected for a four-core, four-thread processor with no hyper-threading.

The FX-8350’s Geekbench scores are 2551 for multi-core and 563 for single-core. This ratio is about 4.5 to one, reflecting the scaling of its eight physical cores, though each core is individually less potent. The single-core Geekbench score of 563 for the FX-8350 is notably higher than the i3-8300’s Cinebench R15 single-core score of 76, but these are different benchmarks measuring different workloads, so direct numerical comparison is not meaningful. The aggregate data, however, shows the FX-8350’s average benchmark score is 1557, just 7 points below the i3-8300’s 1564, a delta of approximately 0.4 percent. This indicates that despite the FX-8350’s higher clock speeds and double the core count, the i3-8300’s modern architecture and higher instructions-per-clock effectively neutralize the deficit in threaded workloads and decisively win in lightly-threaded tasks.

The i3-8300’s nearest rivals in the overall database include the Intel Core i5-6600T with an average score of 1563 and the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X at 1562, both within a tenth of a percent. The FX-8350’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 at 1557 and the Intel Core i3-1115G4E at 1559. This suggests that both processors sit in a crowded mid-range performance band where architectural efficiency meets raw core counts. The i3-8300 achieves its score with a 62-watt TDP and 14nm process, while the FX-8350 requires a 125-watt TDP and a 32nm process to deliver nearly the same aggregate result, highlighting the efficiency gap between the generations.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice between these two CPUs depends entirely on the workload and platform requirements. The Intel Core i3-8300 is the superior choice for single-threaded performance and energy efficiency. Its Cinebench single-core scores are proportionally strong for its class, and its 62-watt TDP is less than half of the FX-8350’s 125-watt TDP. The i3-8300 also supports DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the FX-8350’s DDR3 at 29.9 GB/s, which gives it a memory bandwidth advantage of roughly 28 percent. For tasks that rely on single-core speed, such as older games or lightly-threaded applications, the i3-8300 is the clear winner.

The AMD FX-8350, however, offers eight physical cores and eight threads, doubling the i3-8300’s four cores and four threads. In heavily multi-threaded scenarios that can utilize all eight cores, the FX-8350 can keep pace or potentially exceed the i3-8300, despite its older architecture. Its base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz are higher than the i3-8300’s 3.70 GHz base clock with no boost. The FX-8350 also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking, whereas the i3-8300 is locked. If the workload is highly parallel and the platform can handle the higher power draw, the FX-8350 is worth considering. For every other scenario, the i3-8300’s newer architecture, lower power consumption, and faster memory support make it the more practical recommendation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-8300 has an average benchmark score of 1564, while the AMD FX-8350 scores 1557, a difference of 7 points or approximately 0.4 percent in favor of the i3-8300.

Q: Can the AMD FX-8350 be overclocked?

A: Yes, the FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable. The Intel Core i3-8300 has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i3-8300 has a TDP of 62 watts, while the AMD FX-8350 has a TDP of 125 watts. The i3-8300 consumes less than half the power of the FX-8350 under load.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i3-8300 supports ECC memory, while the AMD FX-8350 does not list ECC memory support in its specifications.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The i3-8300 supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the FX-8350 supports DDR3 with a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-8300 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The FX-8350 has double the core and thread count.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Intel Core i3-8300 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The base clock of the i3-8300 is 3.70 GHz with no boost clock, whereas the FX-8350 runs at a base clock of 4.00 GHz and boosts to 4.20 GHz. TDP is another major differentiator: the i3-8300 is rated at 62 watts, and the FX-8350 at 125 watts. The i3-8300 uses the Intel Socket 1151, while the FX-8350 uses the AMD Socket AM3+.

Memory support also diverges. The i3-8300 uses DDR4 memory with a 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The FX-8350 uses DDR3 memory with a 29.9 GB/s bandwidth and does not support ECC. PCIe generation is different as well: the i3-8300 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the FX-8350 offers only PCIe Gen 2. The i3-8300 includes integrated graphics via UHD Graphics 630, whereas the FX-8350 relies on chipset features on certain motherboards for graphics output. The i3-8300 has a locked multiplier, while the FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The i3-8300 is built on the Coffee Lake architecture using a 14nm process node from Intel, with a die size of 126 mm². The FX-8350 uses the Piledriver architecture on a 32nm process from GlobalFoundries, with a significantly larger die size of 315 mm² and 1,200 million transistors. The cache hierarchies differ as well. The i3-8300 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The FX-8350 has a total of 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2 cache, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The i3-8300’s memory bus is dual-channel DDR4, and its integrated UHD Graphics 630 provides a built-in display output. The FX-8350’s integrated graphics are not a CPU feature but a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The i3-8300 is a 4-core, 4-thread design from the Core i3 generation, while the FX-8350 belongs to the FX (Vishera) generation with 8 cores and 8 threads. The architectural efficiency of the i3-8300’s 14nm process allows it to match the FX-8350’s aggregate performance while using a smaller die and far less power, illustrating the generational leap in instruction-per-clock and energy efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-8300 wins in scenarios that value single-core speed, power efficiency, and modern platform features. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 763 and R20 single-core score of 320 indicate strong per-core performance that is beneficial for everyday applications, legacy software, and games that rely on one or two threads. The 62-watt TDP makes it far easier to cool and cheaper to run than the FX-8350. The support for DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory makes it suitable for systems that need faster memory throughput and error correction. The integrated UHD Graphics 630 provides a basic display output without needing a discrete GPU, and the PCIe Gen 3 support ensures compatibility with modern expansion cards.

The AMD FX-8350 wins in multi-threaded workloads that can take advantage of its eight physical cores. In applications like video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific simulations that scale well with core count, the FX-8350’s 8 cores and 8 threads can match or slightly exceed the i3-8300’s 4 cores and 4 threads, as reflected in the nearly identical average benchmark scores. The higher base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz also give it an edge in tasks that are frequency-sensitive. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which can extend its performance headroom, though at the cost of even higher power consumption. For a system running heavily threaded workloads on a budget platform using DDR3 memory, the FX-8350 remains viable, but its 125-watt TDP and 32nm process make it a hot and power-hungry option compared to the i3-8300.