CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-4670S and the AMD FX-8350 represent two fundamentally different approaches to desktop processing from the early 2010s. The data shows a clear split: the FX-8350 holds a slight edge in average benchmark score (1557 vs 1526) and overall percentile ranking (39th vs 38th), yet the i5-4670S wins both head-to-head comparisons decisively. This paradox, where the AMD part sits marginally higher in aggregate statistics but loses every direct benchmark, sets the stage for a nuanced analysis of what each processor actually delivers in practice.

Where Each One Wins

The most striking aspect of this matchup is that the Intel Core i5-4670S wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the data, taking 2 wins against 0 for the AMD FX-8350. However, the AMD processor's aggregate profile tells a different story. The FX-8350's average benchmark score of 1557 places it ahead of the i5-4670S's 1526 average, and its 39th percentile ranking across all CPUs edges out the Intel part's 38th percentile. This suggests that while the i5-4670S dominates in the specific tests where they are directly compared, the FX-8350 may perform more consistently across a broader range of workloads not captured in the head-to-head set.

The use-case split becomes clearer when examining the available benchmark data. The i5-4670S excels in every measured category, with its Geekbench multi-core score of 3300 representing a 29.4% advantage over the FX-8350's 2551. The single-core gap is even more pronounced, with the Intel part scoring 1184 versus 563, a 110.3% difference. This indicates that for applications relying heavily on per-thread performance, such as older games, lightly-threaded productivity software, or tasks with strict latency requirements, the i5-4670S is the clear choice. Conversely, the FX-8350's strengths must be inferred from its higher average score, likely stemming from workloads that favor its eight physical cores over the i5's four cores and four threads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core i5-4670S uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, manufactured by Intel with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The AMD FX-8350 employs the Piledriver architecture (codenamed Vishera) on a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 1,200 million transistors onto a much larger 315 mm² die. This process advantage helps explain the i5's efficiency, though the FX-8350's larger die size accommodates its higher core count.

Core configurations differ dramatically. The i5-4670S offers 4 cores and 4 threads with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost up to 3.80 GHz. The FX-8350 counters with 8 cores and 8 threads, running at a base clock of 4.00 GHz and boosting to 4.20 GHz. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the Intel part provides 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3, while the AMD part offers 384 KB L1 total, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. The FX-8350's larger aggregate cache capacity and higher clock speeds aim to compensate for its older, less efficient architecture.

Memory support shows both processors using DDR3 with dual-channel memory buses, though the FX-8350 lists a specific memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. PCIe connectivity differs, with the i5-4670S supporting Gen 3 while the FX-8350 only reaches Gen 2. Integrated graphics also set them apart: the Intel part includes Intel HD 4600, whereas the AMD processor relies on "On certain motherboards (Chipset feature)", meaning graphics depend entirely on the platform. The FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the i5-4670S is locked. Production status shows the AMD part as end-of-life, with the Intel part lacking such a designation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two benchmark comparisons, both in Geekbench tests, and the Intel Core i5-4670S dominates both. In Geekbench multi-core, the i5-4670S scores 3300 against the FX-8350's 2551, a delta of 29.4%. This is a significant margin that underscores how much more effectively the Intel part utilizes its resources in multi-threaded scenarios, despite having half the physical cores. The FX-8350's eight cores cannot overcome the architectural efficiency gap, as the i5's superior per-core performance and lower overhead allow it to finish ahead even when all threads are engaged.

The single-core comparison is where the gap becomes extreme. The i5-4670S posts a Geekbench single-core score of 1184, more than double the FX-8350's 563, yielding a 110.3% delta. This result highlights the fundamental weakness of the Piledriver architecture in latency-sensitive tasks. The FX-8350's high clock speeds (4.00 GHz base) cannot compensate for the fact that each individual core delivers far less work per cycle compared to the Haswell design. For any application that cannot effectively use more than one or two threads, the i5-4670S provides over twice the performance of the FX-8350, making the AMD part extremely difficult to recommend for such workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite available only for the i5-4670S, the pattern continues. The Intel part scores 448 in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 63 in single-core, 1870 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 263 in single-core, and 4454 in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 628 in single-core. While no comparable FX-8350 data exists in the benchmark database, the Geekbench results suggest the i5 would maintain or extend its lead across these rendering workloads, given that Cinebench scales with both core count and per-core efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-4670S has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i5-4670S scores 3300 versus the AMD FX-8350's 2551, giving the Intel part a 29.4% advantage.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The i5-4670S scores 1184 in Geekbench single-core compared to the FX-8350's 563, a 110.3% difference in favor of Intel.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FX-8350 has an average benchmark score of 1557, compared to the Intel Core i5-4670S's 1526.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR3 memory with dual-channel memory buses, though the FX-8350 lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-4670S includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, while the AMD FX-8350 relies on a chipset feature available on certain motherboards.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear recommendation for most users: the Intel Core i5-4670S is the better processor. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by substantial margins, offering 29.4% higher multi-core performance and an overwhelming 110.3% higher single-core performance. For anyone running applications that depend on per-thread speed, which includes most games, web browsers, and office software, the i5-4670S is the only sensible choice. Its architectural efficiency, demonstrated by achieving these results with only 4 cores versus 8, makes it the more versatile and future-proof option.

The AMD FX-8350 does have a narrow case for specific scenarios. Its higher average benchmark score (1557 vs 1526) and slightly better percentile ranking (39th vs 38th) suggest that in some aggregate multi-threaded workloads, the additional cores can compensate for the per-core weakness. Users running heavily parallel, well-optimized rendering or scientific workloads might see the FX-8350 perform competitively, especially given its unlocked multiplier for overclocking. However, the lack of any head-to-head win in the available data, combined with its end-of-life production status and larger power footprint (125W TDP versus 65W), makes this a niche argument at best.

Considering the i5-4670S's lower TDP of 65 watts against the FX-8350's 125 watts, the Intel part achieves superior performance while consuming significantly less power. The i5 also offers PCIe Gen 3 versus the FX-8350's Gen 2, providing better bandwidth for modern expansion cards. With integrated graphics on the Intel side versus a chipset-dependent solution on AMD, the i5-4670S provides a more complete, self-contained platform. The verdict is straightforward: the i5-4670S wins on every measured performance metric, efficiency metric, and platform feature, making it the recommended choice for virtually all users based on the available data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-4670S | AMD FX-8350 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | AMD Socket AM3+ |

| Architecture | Haswell | Piledriver |

| Codename | Haswell | Vishera |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 1,200 million |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 315 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 384 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 8 MB |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 29.9 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Production Status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2013-06-01 | 2012-10-22 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $199 |