AMD Ryzen 3 3300X vs Intel Core i3-8350K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X, which wins three of the four recorded head-to-head comparisons. The most dramatic gap appears in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen 3 3300X scores 1071 against the Intel Core i3-8350K's 593, a 80.6% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is a near-doubling of performance in a rendering-style workload that scales with thread count. The Ryzen's 8 threads versus the Intel's 4 threads explain the bulk of this outcome.

The single-core Cinebench R15 result is even more lopsided in percentage terms. The Ryzen 3 3300X records 195 points, while the Core i3-8350K manages only 83, giving AMD a 134.9% lead. This is an unusual result, as single-core tests typically favor Intel parts of this era, but the recorded data is unambiguous. The Ryzen 3 3300X's Zen 2 architecture, with its 7 nm process node, delivers a substantial per-core advantage in this specific benchmark.

GeekBench multi-core shows a more moderate but still clear win for AMD. The Ryzen 3 3300X scores 5772, while the Intel Core i3-8350K scores 4992, a 15.6% difference. This test reflects a mix of integer, floating-point, and memory workloads, and the Ryzen's larger L3 cache and simultaneous multi-threading contribute to the margin. The Intel part does claim one victory, however. In GeekBench single-core, the Core i3-8350K scores 1564 against the Ryzen's 1555, a 0.6% edge. That is a razor-thin margin, effectively a statistical tie, but it does give Intel a single win in the head-to-head table.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce the pattern. The Ryzen 3 3300X has an average benchmark score of 2148, while the Intel Core i3-8350K sits at 2096. The Ryzen also edges ahead in the percentile ranking, placing in the 47th percentile of all CPUs, versus the Intel part's 46th percentile. Neither chip is a high-end performer by modern standards, but the Ryzen consistently outpaces its rival in the recorded tests.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split follows the benchmark results closely. The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X is the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads. Video rendering, 3D scene compilation, batch photo processing, and any task that can utilize more than four threads will benefit from the 80.6% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and the 15.6% lead in GeekBench multi-core. The Ryzen's 8 threads and 16 MB of shared L3 cache give it a structural advantage in these scenarios. The data indicates that content creation software that scales across cores will show a meaningful performance gap in favor of AMD.

For lightly threaded tasks, the picture is more nuanced. The Intel Core i3-8350K wins GeekBench single-core by 0.6%, a margin that is unlikely to be perceptible in real-world use. The Ryzen 3 3300X wins Cinebench R15 single-core by a huge margin, 134.9%, which suggests that the Intel part's single-core advantage is inconsistent across different test methodologies. For everyday desktop use, web browsing, office productivity, and legacy single-threaded applications, both chips are broadly comparable, with the recorded data giving a slight edge to Intel only in one specific test.

Gaming is not directly benchmarked in the data, but the single-core results provide some indication. The Intel part's marginal GeekBench single-core win, combined with its higher base clock of 4.00 GHz versus the Ryzen's 3.80 GHz, suggests it may hold a slight advantage in older game engines that rely heavily on a single thread. However, the Ryzen's dominant single-core Cinebench result complicates this interpretation. The safest conclusion from the data is that the Ryzen 3 3300X is the better all-rounder, while the Intel Core i3-8350K has a narrow niche in specific single-threaded tests.

The Intel part does have one notable feature advantage: it includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 630. The Ryzen 3 3300X has no integrated graphics at all. For a system without a discrete GPU, the Intel chip is the only option between these two. This is a hardware feature, not a benchmark score, but it is a decisive factor for certain builds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Matisse, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i3-8350K uses the Coffee Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process. This process gap is significant. The 7 nm node allows AMD to pack 3,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, whereas Intel's 14 nm part has a die size of 126 mm². The smaller, denser process gives AMD an efficiency and performance-per-transistor advantage that shows up in the benchmark scores.

Core and thread counts differ as well. Both chips have 4 physical cores, but the Ryzen 3 3300X supports 8 threads through simultaneous multi-threading, while the Intel Core i3-8350K is limited to 4 threads. This doubles the Ryzen's logical thread count and is the primary driver behind its 80.6% multi-core lead in Cinebench R15. The cache hierarchy also favors AMD. The Ryzen has 512 KB of L2 cache per core, versus 256 KB per core on the Intel part, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache versus 8 MB. The L3 difference is particularly relevant for workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

Memory bandwidth is another point of separation. The Ryzen 3 3300X supports dual-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core i3-8350K supports dual-channel DDR4 at 38.4 GB/s. This 33% bandwidth advantage for AMD can help in memory-intensive tasks, though the recorded benchmarks do not isolate this variable. The Ryzen also uses AMD Socket AM4 and supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Intel part uses Socket 1151 and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The newer PCIe standard is a future-proofing advantage for storage and GPU connectivity.

Power and thermal characteristics differ markedly. The Ryzen 3 3300X has a 65 W TDP, while the Intel Core i3-8350K is rated at 91 W. The Ryzen delivers higher benchmark scores while drawing less power, a direct benefit of the 7 nm process. The Intel part's higher TDP reflects its older 14 nm node and higher base clock. The Intel chip also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen does not, which could matter for low-end workstation or server builds that require error-correcting memory. The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier, as does the Intel part, so both are overclockable.

The Intel Core i3-8350K is listed as end-of-life in production status, having been released on 2017-10-04. The Ryzen 3 3300X is still active, with a release date of 2020-04-23. The AMD part is also newer by roughly two and a half years, which explains its architectural advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X wins all recorded multi-core tests. It leads by 80.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1071 vs 593) and by 15.6% in GeekBench multi-core (5772 vs 4992).

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-8350K win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins GeekBench single-core by a 0.6% margin, scoring 1564 against the Ryzen's 1555. The Ryzen wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 134.9%, however.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-8350K has a base clock of 4.00 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X has a base clock of 3.80 GHz. The Ryzen has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Intel part has no listed boost clock.

Q: Do both CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core i3-8350K includes UHD Graphics 630, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i3-8350K supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X has an average benchmark score of 2148, placing it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i3-8350K has an average score of 2096, placing it in the 46th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X is the superior processor in nearly every measured category. It wins three of four head-to-head benchmarks, including both multi-core tests and the Cinebench R15 single-core test. Its 80.6% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core is the kind of margin that changes purchasing decisions. For anyone running rendering, compilation, or other threaded workloads, the Ryzen 3 3300X is the obvious pick. Its 8 threads, 16 MB of L3 cache, 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 7 nm process all contribute to a decisive performance advantage.

The Intel Core i3-8350K has a much narrower case. It wins GeekBench single-core by 0.6%, a margin that will not be noticeable in daily use. It includes integrated graphics, which the Ryzen lacks entirely, making it the only choice for a build without a discrete GPU. It also supports ECC memory, a niche feature for specific professional use cases. But in pure performance terms, the Intel part trails significantly. Its 4 threads and 8 MB of L3 cache place it at a structural disadvantage that no amount of clock speed can overcome.

The Ryzen 3 3300X is also the more efficient chip, with a 65 W TDP versus the Intel part's 91 W, and it is built on a more advanced 7 nm process. It is still in active production, while the Intel part is end-of-life. The Ryzen's launch MSRP was $120, and the Intel's launch MSRP was $168, though pricing is not the focus here. The benchmark data alone is sufficient to recommend the AMD part for nearly all users. The only exceptions are systems that require integrated graphics or ECC memory support, where the Intel Core i3-8350K is the only option between these two.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 3300X | Intel Core i3-8350K |

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

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | None listed |

| TDP | 65 W | 91 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Coffee Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 126 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2020-04-23 | 2017-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $120 | $168 |

| Part Number | 100-000000159 | SR3N4 |

The two CPUs share the same core count (4), L1 cache size (64 KB per core), memory type (DDR4), memory bus (dual-channel), and both have unlocked multipliers. The differences above are the fields where the two parts diverge. The Ryzen's advantages in threads, cache, bandwidth, process node, and power efficiency are all reflected in its benchmark dominance. The Intel part's advantages are limited to integrated graphics, ECC support, and a higher base clock, none of which translate into a meaningful performance win in the recorded data.