CPU Comparison

The AMD FX-8350 and Intel Core i5-4690S represent two very different approaches to desktop computing from the early-to-mid 2010s. The data shows a clear split: the FX-8350 offers eight physical cores for heavily threaded workloads, while the i5-4690S counters with significantly higher per-core performance. Benchmark results indicate that the Intel part wins both available head-to-head tests, but the margin and the nature of those wins reveal a more nuanced story about which processor suits which task. The FX-8350 sits at the 39th percentile of all CPUs, and the i5-4690S also sits at the 39th percentile, placing them in essentially the same overall performance tier despite their radically different architectures.

Where Each One Wins

The FX-8350’s case rests entirely on its core count. With 8 cores and 8 threads, it is built for parallel workloads that can scale across many execution units. The i5-4690S, by contrast, has 4 cores and 4 threads. In any application that can use more than four threads effectively, the FX-8350 has a theoretical advantage in raw thread availability. The data, however, does not include a benchmark that directly demonstrates this advantage. The two head-to-head tests available are both Geekbench runs, and the i5-4690S wins both. The i5-4690S also has a much richer benchmark suite in the fact pack, with Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 scores across both multi-core and single-core tests, while the FX-8350 only has Geekbench results. This suggests the FX-8350’s strength in multi-threaded tasks is more hypothetical than demonstrated, at least in the data provided.

The i5-4690S wins on every measurable front in this comparison. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 3251 is 27.4% higher than the FX-8350’s 2551, and its single-core score of 1163 is more than double the FX-8350’s 563. The i5-4690S also has the advantage of integrated graphics with Intel HD 4600, whereas the FX-8350’s graphics are only available "on certain motherboards (Chipset feature)," which is not a direct CPU capability. For a desktop user who values out-of-the-box functionality without a discrete GPU, the i5-4690S is the only one of the two that offers a built-in solution. The i5-4690S also boasts a much lower TDP of 65 watts versus the FX-8350’s 125 watts, which has implications for cooling and power delivery, though the exact thermal or electrical consequences are not quantified in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures from different manufacturers. The FX-8350 uses AMD’s Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, on a 32 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. The i5-4690S uses Intel’s Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. The process node difference is notable: 32 nm versus 22 nm gives Intel a density and efficiency advantage, which is reflected in the TDP figures (125 watts for AMD versus 65 watts for Intel). The die size also tells a story: the FX-8350 has a die size of 315 mm² with 1,200 million transistors, while the i5-4690S is much smaller at 177 mm² but packs 1,400 million transistors. This means Intel fits more transistors into a smaller area, a testament to the denser 22 nm process.

Cache hierarchies are also structured differently. The FX-8350 has a large shared L3 cache of 8 MB, plus 8 MB of L2 cache and 384 KB of L1 cache. The i5-4690S has a smaller 6 MB shared L3 cache, but its L1 and L2 caches are per-core: 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core. With 4 cores, that gives the i5-4690S a total of 256 KB L1 and 1 MB L2, which is substantially less aggregate cache than the FX-8350’s 384 KB L1 and 8 MB L2. However, the per-core cache allocation on the i5-4690S means each core has dedicated fast memory, which can improve single-threaded performance. The FX-8350’s shared L3 cache of 8 MB is larger, but it is shared across all eight cores, which could create contention in heavily threaded workloads.

Memory support is another differentiator, though both use DDR3. The FX-8350 has a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the i5-4690S has 25.6 GB/s. This gives the AMD part a theoretical memory bandwidth advantage of 16.8%, which could help in memory-intensive multi-threaded tasks. However, the i5-4690S supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU, while the FX-8350 only supports PCIe Gen 2. This is a significant difference for discrete GPU performance, as PCIe Gen 3 offers double the bandwidth of Gen 2, though the real-world impact depends on the GPU and workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmarks are both Geekbench tests, and the i5-4690S wins both decisively. In Geekbench multi-core, the i5-4690S scores 3251 against the FX-8350’s 2551, a delta of -21.5% from the perspective of the AMD part. This means the i5-4690S is 27.4% faster in multi-core performance, despite having half the cores and half the threads. This result is striking: it suggests that the FX-8350’s eight cores do not translate into a multi-core advantage over the i5-4690S’s four cores in this particular benchmark. The i5-4690S’s per-core efficiency appears to compensate entirely for its lower core count, and then some.

The single-core Geekbench result is even more lopsided. The i5-4690S scores 1163 versus the FX-8350’s 563, a delta of -51.6%. The i5-4690S is more than double the FX-8350’s single-core performance. This is a massive gap that has implications for any workload that is not perfectly parallel, including most everyday applications, games, and lightly threaded productivity software. The FX-8350’s single-core score of 563 is exceptionally low by modern standards, and the data shows that it falls behind even its direct rivals in average score. The FX-8350’s nearest rival, the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5, has an identical average score of 1557, while the i5-4690S’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-4760HQ, scores 1549, a delta of 0.2%.

The fact that the FX-8350 has zero wins and the i5-4690S has two wins in the head-to-head is unambiguous. However, it is worth noting that the head-to-head data is limited to Geekbench tests. The i5-4690S also has Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 scores, but the FX-8350 has no comparable results in the fact pack. This means the multi-threaded Cinebench scores cannot be compared directly, leaving a gap in the analysis. The i5-4690S’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 4609 and single-core score of 650 show that it performs well in modern rendering workloads, but without an FX-8350 result, the comparison is incomplete.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The core and thread counts are the most obvious: 8 cores and 8 threads for the FX-8350 versus 4 cores and 4 threads for the i5-4690S. Base clocks differ as well, with the FX-8350 running at 4.00 GHz and the i5-4690S at 3.20 GHz, though the boost clocks are closer: 4.20 GHz for the AMD part and 3.90 GHz for the Intel part. The FX-8350 has a higher base and boost clock, yet it still loses in both Geekbench tests, which underscores the architectural efficiency difference.

TDP is a major differentiator: 125 watts for the FX-8350 versus 65 watts for the i5-4690S. This is a 47.2% reduction in TDP for the Intel part, which has significant implications for system cooling and power supply requirements. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket AM3+ for the FX-8350 and Intel Socket 1150 for the i5-4690S. The process nodes differ (32 nm vs 22 nm), as do the foundries (GlobalFoundries vs Intel). Transistor counts are 1,200 million for AMD and 1,400 million for Intel, and die sizes are 315 mm² for AMD and 177 mm² for Intel.

Cache configurations are structurally different, as described above. The FX-8350 has 384 KB L1, 8 MB L2, and 8 MB shared L3, while the i5-4690S has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth favors the FX-8350 at 29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s, but both support DDR3 and dual-channel memory. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe support favors the i5-4690S with Gen 3 and 16 lanes on the CPU, versus Gen 2 for the FX-8350. Integrated graphics are a clear win for the i5-4690S with Intel HD 4600, while the FX-8350 relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards. The multiplier is unlocked on the FX-8350 but locked on the i5-4690S. The release dates differ by about 18 months, with the FX-8350 launching on 2012-10-22 and the i5-4690S on 2014-04-30. The launch MSRP is $199 for the FX-8350 and $224 for the i5-4690S. The FX-8350 is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-4690S has no production status listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-4690S is significantly faster. Its Geekbench single-core score is 1163, while the AMD FX-8350 scores 563, a delta of -51.6% for the AMD part. This means the i5-4690S is more than double the FX-8350’s single-core performance.

Q: Does the FX-8350’s eight-core design give it a multi-core advantage?

A: Not according to the data. In the Geekbench multi-core test, the i5-4690S scores 3251 against the FX-8350’s 2551, a delta of -21.5% for the AMD part. Despite having twice as many cores, the FX-8350 loses the multi-core benchmark by a significant margin.

Q: How do their TDP ratings compare?

A: The FX-8350 has a TDP of 125 watts, while the i5-4690S has a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel part consumes less than half the thermal design power of the AMD part, which suggests lower heat output and potentially simpler cooling requirements.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FX-8350 has a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the i5-4690S has 25.6 GB/s. The AMD part offers a 16.8% higher theoretical memory bandwidth, both using dual-channel DDR3.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 3?

A: Only the Intel Core i5-4690S supports PCIe Gen 3, with 16 lanes on the CPU. The AMD FX-8350 is limited to PCIe Gen 2, which has lower bandwidth for expansion cards such as discrete GPUs.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The AMD FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking. The Intel Core i5-4690S has a locked multiplier, so it does not offer the same overclocking flexibility.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-4690S is the better processor for the vast majority of use cases. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, including the multi-core test where it beats a CPU with double the cores. The i5-4690S offers more than double the single-core performance, which is critical for everyday computing, gaming, and lightly threaded applications. Its lower TDP of 65 watts versus 125 watts makes it easier to cool and more power-efficient. Its integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics provide a built-in display output, whereas the FX-8350 requires a motherboard chipset feature. The i5-4690S also supports PCIe Gen 3, which is a modern standard for discrete GPUs, while the FX-8350 is stuck on PCIe Gen 2.

The FX-8350’s only theoretical advantages are its eight cores, higher memory bandwidth, and unlocked multiplier. However, the multi-core benchmark result directly contradicts the core-count advantage, showing that the i5-4690S’s four cores outperform the FX-8350’s eight cores in Geekbench multi-core. The higher memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s is a real difference, but it did not translate into a win in the available tests. The unlocked multiplier is a niche feature for overclockers, but the data does not include any overclocking results, so its benefit is unquantified.

For a user choosing between these two, the i5-4690S is the clear recommendation from the benchmark data. It offers superior performance in both single-core and multi-core tests, lower power consumption, integrated graphics, and modern PCIe support. The FX-8350 might appeal to someone who specifically needs eight threads and plans to overclock, but the data shows that even in multi-threaded workloads, the i5-4690S holds the advantage. The i5-4690S is also newer by roughly 18 months, which may explain its architectural efficiency. The FX-8350 is end-of-life, while the i5-4690S has no such status, suggesting the Intel part has a longer remaining support window. Based strictly on the numbers, the i5-4690S wins this comparison decisively.