AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i7-1060G7 Comparison

# Opening Paragraph

The Intel Core i7-1060G7 and AMD FX-8350 represent two very different eras of processor design: a low-power Ice Lake mobile chip built for thin laptops versus a high-power desktop Piledriver part from the FX era. The database shows both processors land at the 39th percentile among all CPUs, yet their average benchmark scores differ by only about 2%, with the i7-1060G7 averaging 1591 versus the FX-8350's 1557. That near parity in overall average masks sharp differences in architecture, power draw, and workload behavior, so the choice between them hinges entirely on what the system is being built to do.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-1060G7 wins in every single-core and multi-core Cinebench test recorded in the database, which makes it the clear choice for any application that depends on modern instruction efficiency. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part scores 554 against the FX-8350's best available result, and in R20 multi-core it reaches 2310. The FX-8350's only recorded benchmark wins come from Geekbench, where it posts 2551 multi-core and 563 single-core, but those are the sole tests in the database for that chip, so they cannot be compared directly to the Intel part's Cinebench results.

The FX-8350 wins on raw core count and thread count parity: it has eight physical cores to the i7-1060G7's four cores plus eight threads, and its base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost of 4.20 GHz dwarf the Intel chip's 1.00 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. That makes the FX-8350 the better choice for workloads that scale linearly across many cores and are already compiled for older x86 instruction sets, such as legacy video encoding or multi-threaded rendering tasks that predate the Ice Lake generation.

The i7-1060G7 wins decisively on efficiency and platform integration. Its 9 W TDP versus the FX-8350's 125 W TDP means the Intel chip can operate in fanless or ultra-thin designs, while the AMD part requires a substantial cooler and power delivery system. The Intel chip also brings Iris Plus integrated graphics, whereas the FX-8350 relies on chipset features on certain motherboards for any display output, so the i7-1060G7 is the only one of the two that can run a complete system without a discrete GPU.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is generational. The i7-1060G7 uses Intel's Ice Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node with the Sunny Cove microarchitecture, while the FX-8350 uses AMD's Piledriver architecture on a 32 nm node from GlobalFoundries. The Intel chip's die size is 123 mm², and the FX-8350's die is 315 mm² with 1,200 million transistors, but the smaller, denser Intel process allows for significantly lower power consumption.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The i7-1060G7 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 8 MB of shared L3. The FX-8350 has 384 KB of total L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Intel part's per-core L2 is smaller but its shared L3 is identical in total size, and the per-core L1 allocation gives the Intel architecture more cache resources per thread.

Memory support is another major divide. The i7-1060G7 uses DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus, while the FX-8350 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Intel chip's newer memory standard and wider bus give it a theoretical bandwidth advantage, though the FX-8350's higher clocks help it compensate slightly in older workloads.

PCIe generation also differs: the Intel chip supports PCIe Gen 3, while the FX-8350 is limited to PCIe Gen 2. This affects the maximum bandwidth available for GPUs and NVMe drives, giving the i7-1060G7 a modern connectivity advantage. The FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the i7-1060G7 does not, but the latter's 9 W TDP leaves little thermal headroom for such activity.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance in the database?

A: The Core i7-1060G7 dominates in single-core Cinebench tests. It scores 78 in R15 single-core, 325 in R20 single-core, and 776 in R23 single-core. The FX-8350's only single-core result is 563 in Geekbench, which is not directly comparable but still indicates the Intel chip's architectural advantage in instructions per clock.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The Intel Core i7-1060G7 has a TDP of 9 W, while the AMD FX-8350 has a TDP of 125 W. That is a difference of 116 W, which means the Intel chip can be cooled by a small fan or passively, while the FX-8350 requires a large air or liquid cooler.

Q: Can the FX-8350 be overclocked?

A: Yes, the FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier, making it suitable for overclocking. The i7-1060G7 does not have an unlocked multiplier, so its clock speeds are fixed at the factory settings of 1.00 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost.

Q: Which processor supports newer memory standards?

A: The Core i7-1060G7 supports DDR4 memory on a quad-channel bus, while the FX-8350 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus. The Intel chip also has a higher memory bandwidth potential, though the FX-8350's recorded bandwidth is 29.9 GB/s.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The Core i7-1060G7 is listed as active production, while the FX-8350 is end-of-life. The FX-8350 was released in October 2012, and the i7-1060G7 was released in July 2019, so the Intel part is the newer product.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: The i7-1060G7 has Iris Plus integrated graphics built into the chip. The FX-8350 does not have integrated graphics on the die; it relies on chipset features on certain motherboards for display output, which means a discrete GPU is typically required for the AMD system.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification in the database. The i7-1060G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.00 GHz for Intel versus 4.00 GHz for AMD, and boost clocks are 3.80 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. TDP is 9 W versus 125 W, a massive efficiency gap.

Sockets are completely incompatible: Intel uses BGA 1440 for soldered mobile installation, while AMD uses Socket AM3+ for desktop drop-in mounting. The process node is 10 nm for Intel versus 32 nm for AMD, and the die sizes are 123 mm² versus 315 mm². The FX-8350 has 1,200 million transistors, while the i7-1060G7 has no transistor count listed.

Cache structures differ in organization: the Intel chip has 80 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, while the FX-8350 has 384 KB total L1 and 8 MB total L2. Both share 8 MB of L3. Memory support sees DDR4 quad-channel on Intel versus DDR3 dual-channel on AMD, with the FX-8350's bandwidth specified as 29.9 GB/s. PCIe generation is Gen 3 on Intel versus Gen 2 on AMD. The FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier, the i7-1060G7 does not. Market segments are Mobile for Intel and Desktop for AMD. The FX-8350 has a launch MSRP of $199, while the i7-1060G7 has no launch MSRP listed. The FX-8350's part number is FD8350FRW8KHKFD8350FRHKBOX.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no shared benchmark tests between the two processors, so a direct comparison must rely on the nearest rival data and each chip's own results. The i7-1060G7's average benchmark score of 1591 places it 0.3% above the Intel Core i3-8300T (1586) and 1.2% above the Intel Core i7-10610U (1611, meaning the i7-1060G7 is actually 1.2% below that rival). The FX-8350's average of 1557 is exactly equal to the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 and 0.2% above the Intel Core i3-9300 (1554).

In Cinebench R23, the i7-1060G7 scores 5500 multi-core and 776 single-core. The FX-8350 has no R23 result in the database, so its best comparable data point is the Geekbench multi-core score of 2551. Given that the Intel chip's R15 multi-core score of 554 is higher than its own R15 single-core score of 78 by a factor of 7.1, the multi-threaded scaling is strong for a 4-core/8-thread part.

The FX-8350's Geekbench single-core score of 563 is lower than the i7-1060G7's Cinebench R23 single-core score of 776, though these are different benchmarks. In the nearest rival comparison, the FX-8350 sits 0.1% below the Intel Core i3-1115G4E (1559) and 0.2% below the AMD Opteron 6276 (1560), showing it is competitive with low-end modern parts despite its age.

The biggest wins for the i7-1060G7 are in multi-core Cinebench tests: its R20 multi-core score of 2310 is 4.1 times its R15 multi-core score of 554, which is not a direct rival comparison but shows consistent scaling across test generations. The FX-8350's only wins are its Geekbench results, which are the sole recorded benchmarks for that chip, so they cannot be used to establish a multi-generational trend.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. The Intel Core i7-1060G7 is the right choice for anyone building a compact, low-power system where silence and efficiency matter more than raw throughput. Its 9 W TDP, integrated Iris Plus graphics, DDR4 support, and PCIe Gen 3 make it a complete platform for everyday productivity, media playback, and light creative work, and its Cinebench scores show it can handle modern multi-threaded tasks respectably for its class.

The AMD FX-8350 is the pick for a desktop system where the user has an existing AM3+ motherboard, wants to overclock, and needs eight physical cores for legacy multi-threaded workloads. Its 125 W TDP demands a serious cooler and power supply, but its unlocked multiplier and 4.20 GHz boost clock give it raw frequency that older software can exploit. However, its end-of-life status, DDR3 limitation, PCIe Gen 2, and lack of on-die graphics mean it is a poor fit for new builds in 2024.

For a new system, the i7-1060G7 is the more sensible choice in almost every scenario: it is active in production, far more efficient, and its architecture supports modern instructions and memory. The FX-8350 only makes sense as a budget upgrade for someone already invested in the AM3+ platform with DDR3 memory on hand. The database shows near-equal average scores, but the Intel chip achieves that parity at a fraction of the power, which is the decisive advantage in any practical build.