AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i7-4760HQ Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-8350 and Intel Core i7-4760HQ occupy very different corners of the performance spectrum, and the data reflects that split clearly. The FX-8350 is a desktop part with 8 physical cores running at a 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost clock, which gives it a decisive edge in raw multi-threaded throughput for its era. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 2551 stands far above the i7-4760HQ’s available multi-core results, though those come from different benchmark suites (Cinebench R15/R20/R23), making direct cross-suite comparisons tricky. Where the FX-8350 wins, it wins on sheer core count and clock speed: eight Piledriver cores at 4+ GHz can chew through heavily parallel workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific simulations that scale linearly with thread count.

The Intel Core i7-4760HQ, by contrast, is a mobile processor with 4 cores and 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, running at a modest 2.10 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. Its wins come from efficiency and single-thread agility. The data shows Cinebench R23 single-core score of 756, which, while not directly comparable to the FX-8350’s Geekbench single-core score of 563, still indicates a far stronger per-core performance profile. The i7-4760HQ also benefits from a smaller 22 nm process node versus the FX-8350’s 32 nm, which translates into lower power draw (47 W TDP vs 125 W) and better thermal behavior—critical for laptops, where the i7-4760HQ is aimed (mobile market segment). In tasks that rely on a few fast cores—like legacy gaming, office productivity, or lightly threaded applications—the i7-4760HQ should pull ahead, even with a 1.9 GHz base clock deficit.

The wins are not evenly distributed. The FX-8350 owns multi-threaded, compute-heavy scenarios; the i7-4760HQ owns single-threaded and power-constrained scenarios. The benchmark data includes no head-to-head results (the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty), so we must infer from the separate suites. The FX-8350’s Geekbench numbers (2551 multi, 563 single) suggest a wide gap between its multi and single-core performance—a 4.5x ratio—while the i7-4760HQ’s Cinebench R23 scores (5355 multi, 756 single) show a 7.1x ratio, meaning the Intel part scales better across its threads relative to its single-core baseline. That is a telling architectural signal.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on fundamentally different philosophies. The FX-8350 uses AMD’s Piledriver architecture, codenamed Vishera, on a 32 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors onto a 315 mm² die. The i7-4760HQ uses Intel’s Haswell architecture, specifically the Crystalwell variant, on a 22 nm process from Intel’s own fabs, with 1,400 million transistors on a 264 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: Intel squeezes 200 million more transistors into a 51 mm² smaller die, which explains the efficiency gap.

Core and cache layouts diverge sharply. The FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, with 384 KB of L1 cache, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. The i7-4760HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads (Hyper-Threading), with 64 KB L1 per core (256 KB total for 4 cores), 256 KB L2 per core (1 MB total), and 6 MB of shared L3. The FX-8350’s larger aggregate cache (16 MB total vs ~7.25 MB) serves its wider core count, but the i7-4760HQ’s per-core L1 and L2 are larger relative to its core count, aiding single-thread latency.

Memory support is similar—both use DDR3 with dual-channel buses—but bandwidth differs: the FX-8350 claims 29.9 GB/s, while the i7-4760HQ lists 25.6 GB/s. PCIe generations also differ: the FX-8350 uses Gen 2, while the i7-4760HQ supports Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics is another separator—the FX-8350 has no on-die GPU (only “on certain motherboards” as a chipset feature), while the i7-4760HQ includes Intel HD 5200, a high-end iGPU for its time.

Other key differences: the FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier (overclockable), uses AMD Socket AM3+, and targets the desktop market. The i7-4760HQ has a locked multiplier, uses Intel BGA 1364 (soldered), and targets mobile. The FX-8350 launched in October 2012 with a $199 launch MSRP; the i7-4760HQ launched in January 2014 with no listed MSRP. Both are end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different buyers. The FX-8350 is the choice for anyone running heavily threaded desktop workloads where power draw is not a primary concern. Its 8 physical cores and 4.20 GHz boost clock, combined with a 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth, make it a capable workhorse for multi-core rendering, video transcoding, or scientific computing. Its 39th percentile ranking among all CPUs and average benchmark score of 1557 place it on par with the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 (deltaPct 0) and Intel Core i3-9300 (deltaPct 0.2), meaning it holds its own against mid-range rivals in aggregate metrics.

The i7-4760HQ is the pick for mobile users or anyone prioritizing single-thread performance and efficiency. Its 47 W TDP is less than half the FX-8350’s 125 W, and its 22 nm process delivers superior per-watt performance. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 2249 and R23 multi-core score of 5355 indicate strong scaling for a 4-core/8-thread part, while its 38th percentile and average score of 1549 place it nearly identical to the FX-8350 (deltaPct -0.5). In aggregate, these two CPUs are statistical equals—1557 vs 1549 average score—but their profiles could not be more different.

Choose the FX-8350 if you need raw multi-core muscle in a desktop and can tolerate higher power consumption. Choose the i7-4760HQ if you need a balanced, efficient mobile processor with strong single-core performance and integrated graphics. There is no universal winner; the data shows a trade-off between core count and clock speed versus architectural efficiency and per-core strength.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The AMD FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i7-4760HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads (via Hyper-Threading).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The FX-8350 has an average benchmark score of 1557, while the i7-4760HQ scores 1549. The i7-4760HQ is 0.5% behind the FX-8350 in the nearest rivals data (deltaPct -0.5).

Q: Does the i7-4760HQ have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 5200. The FX-8350 does not have on-die graphics; it relies on a chipset feature on certain motherboards.

Q: Can the FX-8350 be overclocked?

A: Yes, it has an unlocked multiplier. The i7-4760HQ has a locked multiplier, so it cannot be overclocked.

Q: Which CPU has a higher TDP?

A: The FX-8350 has a TDP of 125 W, while the i7-4760HQ has a TDP of 47 W.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The FX-8350 was released on 2012-10-22, and the i7-4760HQ was released on 2014-01-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark results in the data (the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty, and winsA and winsB are both 0). However, we can compare their respective benchmark suites to identify where each dominates.

The FX-8350’s Geekbench multi-core score of 2551 is its strongest showing. This number, achieved on a desktop platform with 8 physical cores, reflects the advantage of having twice the physical core count of the i7-4760HQ. The i7-4760HQ’s best multi-core result is its Cinebench R23 score of 5355, which is a modern benchmark that stresses both single and multi-thread performance. While these are different tests, the FX-8350’s multi-core Geekbench score is 4.5x its single-core score (2551 vs 563), indicating that it scales exceptionally well with additional threads. The i7-4760HQ’s R23 multi-core score is 7.1x its single-core score (5355 vs 756), showing even better thread scaling relative to its own baseline.

In single-core performance, the i7-4760HQ’s Cinebench R15 single-core score of 76, R20 score of 317, and R23 score of 756 all point to a strong per-core design. The FX-8350’s Geekbench single-core score of 563 is significantly lower in absolute terms, though direct cross-suite comparison is not valid. What the data does show is that the i7-4760HQ’s single-core scores are proportionally higher relative to its multi-core scores, suggesting better single-thread efficiency.

The biggest aggregate win for the FX-8350 is its average benchmark score of 1557, which edges out the i7-4760HQ’s 1549. However, the margin is razor-thin—less than 0.6%—and falls within the noise of the nearest rivals. The FX-8350’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 (1557, deltaPct 0) and Intel Core i3-9300 (1554, deltaPct 0.2), while the i7-4760HQ’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-4690S (1551, deltaPct -0.1) and the same Core i3-9300 (1554, deltaPct -0.3). Both CPUs occupy the same performance tier in aggregate, but their individual benchmark profiles are complementary rather than competitive.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD FX-8350 and Intel Core i7-4760HQ:

• Cores: 8 vs 4
• Threads: 8 vs 8
• Base Clock: 4.00 GHz vs 2.10 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.20 GHz vs 3.30 GHz
• TDP: 125 W vs 47 W
• Socket: AMD Socket AM3+ vs Intel BGA 1364
• Architecture: Piledriver vs Haswell
• Codename: Vishera vs Crystalwell
• Generation: FX (Vishera) vs Core i7 (Crystal Well)
• Process Node: 32 nm vs 22 nm
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries vs Intel
• Transistors: 1,200 million vs 1,400 million
• Die Size: 315 mm² vs 264 mm²
• L1 Cache: 384 KB vs 64 KB (per core)
• L2 Cache: 8 MB vs 256 KB (per core)
• L3 Cache: 8 MB (shared) vs 6 MB (shared)
• Memory Bandwidth: 29.9 GB/s vs 25.6 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 2 vs Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated Graphics: On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) vs Intel HD 5200
• Market Segment: Desktop vs Mobile
• Release Date: 2012-10-22 vs 2014-01-31
• Launch MSRP: $199 vs null
• Multiplier Unlocked: true vs false
• Part Number: FD8350FRW8KHKFD8350FRHKBOX vs SR1BM
• Benchmarks Available: Geekbench (multi/single) vs Cinebench R15/R20/R23 (multi/single)
• Percentile vs All CPUs: 39 vs 38
• Average Benchmark Score: 1557 vs 1549