AMD FX-8350 vs. Intel Core i7-6700K
AMD FX-8350
The AMD FX-8350 operates with 8 cores and 8 CPU threads. It run at 4.20 GHz base 4.10 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 125 W.The processor is attached to the AM3+ CPU socket. This version includes 8.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support RAM and features PCIe Gen lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Vishera (Bulldozer) Architecture is enhanced with 32 nm technology and supports AMD-V. The product was launched on Q4/2012
Intel Core i7-6700K
The Intel Core i7-6700K operates with 4 cores and 8 CPU threads. It run at 4.20 GHz base 4.00 GHz all cores while the TDP is set at 91 W.The processor is attached to the LGA 1151 CPU socket. This version includes 8.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support RAM and features 3.0 PCIe Gen 16 lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Skylake S Architecture is enhanced with 14 nm technology and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d. The product was launched on Q3/2015
AMD FX-8350
Intel Core i7-6700K
Compare Detail
| 4.00 GHz | Frequency | 4.00 GHz |
| 8 | Cores | 4 |
| 4.20 GHz | Turbo (1 Core) | 4.20 GHz |
| 4.10 GHz | Turbo (All Cores) | 4.00 GHz |
| No | Hyperthreading | Yes |
| Yes | Overclocking | Yes |
| normal | Core Architecture | normal |
| no iGPU | GPU |
Intel HD Graphics 530 |
| No turbo | GPU (Turbo) | 1.15 GHz |
| 32 nm | Technology | 14 nm |
| No turbo | GPU (Turbo) | 1.15 GHz |
| DirectX Version | 12 | |
| Max. displays | 3 | |
| Memory | ||
| 2 | Memory channels | 2 |
| Max memory | ||
| Yes | ECC | No |
| — | L2 Cache | — |
8. 00 MB |
L3 Cache | 8.00 MB |
| PCIe version | 3.0 | |
| PCIe lanes | 16 | |
| 32 nm | Technology | 14 nm |
| AM3+ | Socket | LGA 1151 |
| 125 W | TDP | 91 W |
| AMD-V | Virtualization | VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d |
| Q4/2012 | Release date | Q3/2015 |
|
Show more data |
Show more data |
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms.
The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.
5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies, which can also be textured and animated in the software. The Blender benchmark creates predefined scenes and measures the time (s) required for the entire scene. The shorter the time required, the better. We selected bmw27 as the benchmark scene.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D.
The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The iGPU test uses the CPU internal graphic unit to execute OpenGL commands.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Comparison. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Comparison’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Electric Usage Estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)
Power cost, dollar per kWh
Electric Usage Estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)
Power cost, dollar per kWh
| AMD FX-8350 | Intel Core i7-6700K | |
| 125 W | Max TDP | 91 W |
| NA | Power consumption per day (kWh) | NA |
| NA | Running cost per day | NA |
| NA | Power consumption per year (kWh) | NA |
| NA | Running cost per year | NA |
Popular Comparision
Comments
AMD FX-8320 vs Intel Core i7-6700: What is the difference?
39points
AMD FX-8320
52points
Intel Core i7-6700
Comparison winner
vs
64 facts in comparison
AMD FX-8320
Intel Core i7-6700
Why is AMD FX-8320 better than Intel Core i7-6700?
- 1.
75x faster CPU speed?
8 x 3.5GHzvs4 x 4GHz - 7MB bigger L2 cache?
8MBvs1MB - 128KB bigger L1 cache?
384KBvs256KB - Has an unlocked multiplier?
- 0.75MB/core more L2 cache per core?
1MB/corevs0.25MB/core - 10.48% higher PassMark result (overclocked)?
9371vs8482 - Has FMA4?
Why is Intel Core i7-6700 better than AMD FX-8320?
- 267MHz higher ram speed?
2133MHzvs1866MHz - 9.9°C higher maximum operating temperature?
71°Cvs61.1°C - 18nm smaller semiconductor size?
14nmvs32nm - 60W lower TDP?
65Wvs125W - 1 newer version of PCI Express (PCIe)?
3vs2 - Has integrated graphics?
- 13.1GB/s more memory bandwidth?
34.1GB/svs21GB/s - 1.64x higher PassMark result (single)?
2301vs1403
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD FX-8320
vs
AMD FX-8320E
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i7-7700
AMD FX-8320
vs
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i5-9400
AMD FX-8320
vs
AMD FX-6300
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i7-6700T
AMD FX-8320
vs
AMD FX-8350
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i5-6500
AMD FX-8320
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i3-8100
AMD FX-8320
vs
Intel Core i5-3470
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i5-7500
AMD FX-8320
vs
Intel Core i7-3770
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i7-4770
AMD FX-8320
vs
Intel Core i5-6500
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i7-3770
AMD FX-8320
vs
Intel Core i5-4570
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i5-8500
AMD FX-8320
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 4500U
Intel Core i7-6700
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Price comparison
User reviews
Performance
1.
CPU speed
8 x 3.5GHz
4 x 4GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
2.CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
3.turbo clock speed
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
4.Has an unlocked multiplier
✔AMD FX-8320
✖Intel Core i7-6700
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
5.L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
6.L3 cache
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
7.L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
8.L2 core
1MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
9.L3 core
1MB/core
2MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Memory
1.RAM speed
1866MHz
2133MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
21GB/s
34.1GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.DDR memory version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
(AMD FX-8320)
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
4.memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
5.maximum memory amount
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
6.bus transfer rate
5.4GT/s
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports ECC memory
✖AMD FX-8320
✖Intel Core i7-6700
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown.
Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-6700)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
9.bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-6700)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Benchmarks
1.PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
2.PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value.
(AMD FX-8320)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-6700)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 (single) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-6700)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.
Blender (bmw27) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-6700)
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
8.Blender (classroom) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-6700)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
9.performance per watt
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Features
1.uses multithreading
✖AMD FX-8320
✔Intel Core i7-6700
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads.
This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
2.Has AES
✔AMD FX-8320
✔Intel Core i7-6700
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3.Has AVX
✔AMD FX-8320
✔Intel Core i7-6700
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
4.SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5.Has F16C
✔AMD FX-8320
✔Intel Core i7-6700
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
6.bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-6700)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
7.Has MMX
✔AMD FX-8320
✔Intel Core i7-6700
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD FX-8320
✖Intel Core i7-6700
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
9.front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD FX-8320)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Core i7-6700)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best CPUs?
Intel Skylake i7 6700K & i5 6600K vs AMD Vishera FX 8370 ; A Gaming Comparison
Carrying on from the i5 6400 vs FX-8370 gaming comparison that was published a few weeks ago we now have the follow up for it with a few additions and changes.
The last round of testing was done at 1440p across 8 different games but we have expanded on that including 1080p testing and increasing the amount of games tested from 8 to 14 at both stock and overclocked.
let’s go over the processors and system configurations I’ll be using:
The AMD FX-8370 is a 125w TDP multiplier unlocked 8 core CPU built on a 32nm process, features 8MB of L2 cache (split 4 ways) and 8MB of L3 cache with a base frequency of 4.0Ghz and a turbo speed of 4.3Ghz.
The Intel Core i5 6600k is a 91w TDP quad core processor built on a 14nm process with an unlocked multiplier, it features 1MB of L2 cache (split 4 ways) and 6MB of L3 cache with a base frequency of 3.5Ghz and a turbo speed of 3.9Ghz.
And finally we have the Intel Core i7 6700k, this is a 91w TDP quad core processor built on a 14nm process with Hyperthreading and an unlocked multiplier, It has 1MB of L2 cache (split 4 ways) and 8MB of L3 cache with a base frequency of 4. 0Ghz and a turbo speed of 4.2Ghz.
This is set to be a very interesting comparison here, on one corner we have AMDs aging 8 core up against Intels newest i5 quad core and the i7 quad core with Hyperthreading.
So before we finally dive into the results let me tell you the rest of the systems used here:
First up is the AM3+ rig
CPU: AMD FX-8370 (Stock 4.0/4.3Ghz — 4.8Ghz Overclocked)
Motherboard: Asus ROG Crosshair V Formula-Z
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL TridentX DDR3 2400Mhz 10-12-12-31
GPU: XFX R9 Fury Triple Dissipation
OS Drive: Samsung 840 Evo 250GB
Games Drive: WD Black 2TB HDD
Power Supply: Silverstone Strider Gold 1200w
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
And now we have the Socket 1151 Rig:
CPU: Intel Core i5 6600k (Stock 3.5/3.9Ghz — 4.6Ghz Overclocked)
CPU: Intel Core i7 6700k (Stock 4. 0/4.2Ghz — 4.6Ghz Overclocked)
Motherboard: MSI Xpower Gaming Titanium Edition
Memory: 16GB HyperX Savage 2800Mhz 14-16-16-39
GPU: XFX R9 Fury Triple Dissipation
OS Drive: HyperX Predator M.2 240GB
Games Drive: Seagate 2TB SSHD
Power Supply: Corsair AX1200i
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Now I’ll take the moment here to address some of the questions that arose from the original article:
Each benchmark is run 3 times (432 individual tests) and then the average of those 3 runs is taken and used as the final result.
In terms of using a Seagate SSHD for my Intel system and a «slower» WD Black HDD for AMD I did run some testing between them and found no changes to fps performance, only load times were different.
And finally this is the list of games tested:
Grand Theft Auto V (Ultra Settings)
Fallout 4 (Ultra Preset)
Mad Max (Very High Preset)
Crysis 3 (Ultra Preset)
Battlefield 4 (Ultra Preset)
Star Wars: Battlefront (Ultra Preset)
Dirt Rally (Ultra Preset)
Grid: Autosport (Ultra Preset)
Metro: LL Redux (Very High Settings)
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (Very High Preset)
Thief (Very High Preset)
Rise of The Tomb Raider (Very High Preset)
The Witcher 3 (Ultra Preset — No Hairworks)
Ashes of the Singularity (Extreme Preset DX12)
Now that’s all out of the way let’s dive into the results shall we?
First up is 1080p performance:
Grand Theft Auto V
In GTA V the i5 managed a min of 8fps and a avg of 96fps, the FX-8370 scored the same 8fps on the minimum as the i5 but was 30fps lower on the avg with 66fps, meanwhile the i7 6700k managed a minimum of 23fps and an average of 98.
Once overclocked the i5 6600k gained 13fps on the minimum going from 8fps to 21fps and an extra 10fps increase for the average, for the FX-8370 the extra speed helped it but not enough to catch the newer Intel CPUs with it going from 8fps to 14fps for the minimum and a 10fps increase on the average to 76fps.
The 6700k meanwhile went a little backwards on the minimum going from 23fps to 19fps but increased its average by 4fps going from 98fps to 102fps.
Fallout 4
In Fallout 4 the i5 6600k scored a minimum fps of 47 and an average of 88, the FX-8370 is quite a bit behind at 27fps minimum and 61fps average but the i7 6700k had no issues providing a minimum of 55fps and an average of 86fps.
Overclocking increased the fps across the board for all 3 processors with the 6600k gaining 7fps for the minimum and 10fps on the average, the FX-8370 gaining 3fps minimum and 8fps average going from 61fps to 69fps.
The i7 6700k gained 2fps minimum but gained an impressive 16fps on the average going from 86fps to 102fps.
Mad Max
In Mad Max the i5 6600k managed a minimum fps of 95 and an average of 125, the FX-8370 managed a slightly higher minimum of 98fps but a lower average of 115fps. The i7 6700k meanwhile scored the lowest minimum fps of the 3 with 92fps but also managed the highest average with 126fps.
Once overclocked the fps increased across the board except in the case of the i5 which managed to go down 3fps on the minimum from 95 to 92fps and saw no change in the average fps, the FX-8370 and i7 6700k on the other hand saw increases to both the minimum and average with the 8370 going from 98fps minimum to 116fps and from 115fps average to 129fps which was rather impressive, the 6700k also did quite well going from 92fps minimum to 106fps and raising the average fps by 9 from 126fps to 135fps.
Crysis 3
For Crysis 3 the 6600k is the performance leader here with it managing 42fps minimum and 68fps average while the FX-8370 recorded a minimum of 35fps and an average of 56fps, with the i7 6700k I can only assume there is some issue with Hyperthreading as it scored a 27fps minimum and a 58fps avg.
Overclocking helped all 3 processors with the i5 6600k going from 42fps to 53fps for the minimum and increased the average by 1fps going from 68fps to 69fps, the FX-8370 gained a 7fps boost on the minimum going from 35fps to 42fps and a 3fps increase to the average going from 56fps to 59fps meanwhile the 6700k suffered from the same issues overclocked as it did at stock with it scoring the lowest minimum fps of the 3 with 36fps but it was an improvement over the stock 27fps and it increased the average fps from 58fps to 66fps.
Battlefield 4
Battlefield 4 was a nice surprise with the all 3 CPUs performing very much the same and only a few fps difference separating them.
Once overclocked there still wasn’t much variation between them but the FX-8370 did fall behind a bit with it recording a 86fps minimum compared to the i5 with 97fps and the i7 6700k recording 98fps on the minimum.
Star Wars: Battlefront
In Star Wars: Battlefront the AMD chip put up a good showing with it scoring the highest minimum of 93fps compared to the 78fps for the i5 and 86fps for the i7, and for the averages the 6700k posted the highest with 117fps compared to 113fps for the 8370 and 108fps for the 6600k.
Overclocking proved to be of greatest benefit to the i5 6600k with a sizeable 25fps increase to the minimum and a 27fps increase to the average while the FX-8370 saw an 8fps increase to minimum fps and an increase of 11fps to its average, the 6700k went from 86fps to 99fps minimum and also increased its average fps from 117fps to 132fps.
Dirt Rally
With Dirt Rally it’s clear from the start that this game favours the faster single core performance of the Intel CPUs over AMDs FX with the 6600k scoring 86fps minimum and 106fps average vs the FX-8370s 54fps minimum and 82fps average.
The i5 6600k and FX-8370 benefited the most from overclocking with the i5 gaining 9fps on both the minimum and average and the FX gaining 12fps minimum and 9fps average but strangely enough the 6700k didn’t see the same jump that the i5 did with the minimum fps only increasing by 1 and the average actually going down by 1.
GRID: Autosport
A common theme among games of the racing genre is that they prefer single core performance over multi as we can see the i5 6600k dominates the FX-8370 here and even shows up the i7 6700k which seems to suggest this game doesn’t like Hyperthreading all that much either.
Moving onto the overclocked tests and again the i5 6600k is right out in front with a 9fps increase to the minimum and a 10fps increase to the average, the FX-8370 also saw gains from overclocking with a 7fps increase to the minimum and an 8fps increase to the average, meanwhile the i7 6700k saw some gains but still lagged behind it’s little brother.
Metro: Last Light Redux
In Metro: Last Light the little i5 again pulls out in front posting a minimum of 26fps and an average of 58fps while the FX-8370 managed 17fps minimum and 54fps average and the i7 6700k recorded a minimum of 24fps and an average of 53fps.
Overclocking once again brought gains across the board with the i5 6600k gaining 9fps minimum going from 26fps to 35fps and gaining 1fps on the average, the FX-8370 increased it’s minimum fps by 3 going from 17fps to 20fps and it’s average received a healthy bump from 54fps to 63fps which was the highest out of the three and of course the i7 6700k gained 8fps on the minimum and the average increased by 5fps.
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
Moving onto Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor and all three CPUs seemed to sit around the same fps mark.
Once overclocked things didn’t change much for the i5 6600k but the FX-8370 raised its average up from 98fps to 102fps bringing it in line with the Intel CPUs but the surprise came from the i7 6700k which had a nice 17fps increase to its minimum fps bringing it up from 51fps to 68fps.
Thief
With Thief the FX-8370 got pummeled, it recorded a 32fps minimum and a 56fps average which is a far cry from the i5 6600k and its 50fps minimum and 83fps average while the i7 6700k recorded very similar numbers to the i5 of 51fps minimum and 80fps average.
Overclocking increased the fps for all three processors with the 6600k gaining 7fps on both the minimum and average fps, the i7 6700k gained 2fps to its minimum and 4fps to it’s avg and while the FX-8370 gained 7fps on the minimum and 5fps on the average it wasn’t enough to catch up to the Intel chips.
Rise of the Tomb Raider
With Rise of the Tomb Raider the i5 6600k got a respectable 44fps minimum and 55fps average, the FX-8370 didn’t fair so well and only managed a 28fps minimum while the average of 52fps isn’t bad, the i7 6700k also put in a nice effort with 42fps minimum and 58fps average.
Overclocking didn’t seem to help these CPUs much as the i5 actually lost 1fps on the minimum but did gain 5fps average, the 6700k gained 3fps minimum and 1fps average and the FX-8370 saw a 4fps gain on the minimum bringing it above 30fps but it didn’t help it’s average with it actually going 1fps backwards.
The Witcher 3
In The Witcher 3 all three CPUs performed well with the i5 and FX posting the same numbers and only the 6700k being ahead by 2fps in both minimum and average fps.
Overclocking however changed that with the i5 6600k gained 4fps to its minimum and 6fps to its average and the 6700k gained 5fps to its minimum and 2fps to its average while the FX-8370 went a little backwards for minimum fps but did gain 1fps average.
Ashes of the Singularity (DX12)
Now with the results concerning Ashes of the Singularity there were some people who wanted to see some DX12 results but unfortunately I cannot record the minimum fps so these results only contain the average.
In Ashes of the Singularity the i5 6600k and i7 6700k managed 57fps average and 58fps average respectively with the FX-8370 being a bit slower at 47fps average.
Overclocking improved the fps all round with the 6700k gaining 10fps while the 6600k gained 1fps and the 8370 increased its average by 2fps.
Congratulations, You’ve made it to the halfway point!
If you aren’t sick of numbers and graphs by now then please continue on reading as now we are getting into the 1440p testing ?
Grand Theft Auto V
In GTA V the increase in resolution helped all 3 CPUs with them recording higher minimums than they did at 1080p, individually the i5 6600k managed a minimum of 18fps and an average of 86fps, the FX-8370 scored a minimum of 9fps with and average of 68fps and the i7 6700k recorded an impressive 27fps minimum and an average of 85fps.
Overclocking brought gains for both the i5 and FX but the i7 more or less remained the same suggesting it was GPU bound even at stock, the 6600k had a 3fps increase to its minimum and a 1fps increase to its average while the 8370 went from 9fps to 14fps on the minimum and gained 7fps to its average.
Fallout 4
In Fallout 4 the i7 6700k is the clear winner here with its minimum fps being more than double that of the FX-8370 and also having the highest average fps of the three, the i5 6600k also put in a good showing with a 37fps minimum and a 82fps average while the 8370 trailed behind with a 27fps minimum and a 61fps average.
After the CPUs had been overclocked the i5 6600k gained the most with a 14fps increase to it’s minimum fps bringing it up from 37fps to 51fps, the FX-8370 gained 2fps on its minimum and 5fps on its average while the i7 6700k didn’t see a change on it’s minimum fps but did gain 1fps on its average.
Mad Max
Mad Max appears to take advantage of the FX and i7’s higher thread count with them both outpacing the i5 6600k in both minimum and average fps.
Overclocking seemed to have helped the FX-8370 more than its Intel rivals with the minimum fps staying the same but its average increasing by 3fps, meanwhile the i5 6600k also saw gains with a 5fps increase to it’s minimum fps and a 1fps increase to its average, the i7 6700k also saw a 4fps gain to its average fps but also lost 4fps to its minimum.
Crysis 3
In Crysis 3 both the i5 6600k and FX-8370 did quite well with the former posting a 35fps minimum and a 41fps average and the latter with a 32fps minimum and a 42fps average while the 6700k had a slightly higher average fps its minimum was a bit lower than both the FX and i5.
overclocking didn’t see to help much in the case of the i5 and FX with the i5 6600k not having any change on its minimum fps but gaining 2fps on its average, the FX-8370 also didn’t see an increase to it’s minimum fps but did see a 1fps gain to the average, the i7 6700k however gained 7fps to its minimum and it also posted the same 43fps average and the i5 and FX.
Battlefield 4
There isn’t much discrepancy at all here with all 3 CPUs recorded the same average fps and only the i5 was slightly slower on the minimum with it posting a 48fps minimum compared to the i7 and FXs 50fps minimum.
Overclocking brought about some of the freakiest numbers I’ve recorded with all three CPUs gaining 3fps average bring them up to 85fps average with the FX-8370 gaining 15fps on its minimum, the i5 6600k gained 16fps minimum while the i7 6700k went up by 10fps minimum.
Star Wars: Battlefront
In Star Wars: Battlefront the i5 6600k was quite a bit below the FX and i7 for minimum fps but did manage a slightly higher average while the FX-8370 pushed out an impressive 85fps minimum and a 96fps average and the i7 6700k recorded a minimum of 82fps and an average of 96fps.
When overclocked the i5 6600k gained a nice 26fps increase posting a 87fps minimum and an average of 100fps even, the FX-8370 maintained its lead over its Intel rivals recording a 88fps minimum and a 105fps average while the 6700k didn’t seem to benefit from an overclock as much only raising its minimum to 84fps and the average went up to 99fps.
Dirt Rally
Unlike at 1080p the gap isn’t as large here between AMD and Intel but it’s still Intel who come out on top with both the i5 6600k and i7 6700k posting the same minimum fps of 65 and the same average of 81 which is a little bit ahead of the FX-8370s 62fps minimum and 77fps average.
Overclocking brought the most benefit to the 6700k here which it increasing its minimum fps by 5 and its average fps by 4, the i5 6600k saw a 2fps gain on its average but the minimum remained the same while the FX-8370 gained 2fps on its minimum and 3fps on its average bringing it up almost in line with the 6600k.
GRID: Autosport
As we seen in the 1080p testing GRID: Autosport loves its single core performance and the FX-8370 just can’t keep up here with it posting a 67fps minimum and 83fps average compared to the 96fps minimum and 114fps average posted by the i5 6600k and the 95fps minimum and 113fps average recorded by the 6700k.
Overclocking didn’t provide much of an increase for the Intel CPUs with the i5 gaining 4fps minimum and losing 4fps average, the i7 6700k gained 2fps on the average but lost 5fps on the average which is most likely some fluctuations between the benchmarks, the FX-8370 however only gained fps which was 7fps on the minimum and 5fps on the average.
Metro: Last Light Redux
Moving onto Metro: Last Light Redux, the i5 6600k provided a minimum of 22fps and an average of 38fps, the i7 6700k also recorded a 38fps average but was 1fps faster on the minimum and finally the FX-8370 posted a rather low minimum fps of 12 but did quite well on the average scoring 39.
Overclocking didn’t improve the average fps for any of the three CPUs which suggests that even at stock it was in fact GPU bound but it did however improve the minimums with the 6600k going up by 2fps and the 6700k going up by 1fps as well, meanwhile the 8370 gained 4fps bringing it up to 16fps minimum which is still a little short of the i5 and i7.
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
With Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor there is no variation for the average fps but the minimum fps does vary a bit with the i5 6600k posting the highest minimum of 56fps, the i7 6700k managed 47fps minimum and the FX-8370 squeezed out 39fps minimum.
After overclocking the CPUs there is still no change to the average fps but the minimums increased for both the FX and i7 with the former gaining 4fps and the latter gained a healthy 10fps but in the case of the i5 it lost 3fps on the average.
Thief
As we seen in the 1080p testing Thief really does like its single core performance and it really does show here with the i5 6600k posting a minimum of 54fps and an average of 69fps while the i7 6700k was again lower than the i5 with a minimum fps of 48 and an average of 67fps but it was still higher than the FX-8370 which managed a minimum of 33fps and an average of 67fps.
Once overclocked there wasn’t much gains on either of the Intel chips with the i5 6600k gaining 1fps average and the minimum staying the same, the i7 6700k increased its minimum and average fps by 1.
The FX-8370 however did see some gains with a 4fps increase on the minimum and average but again not enough to catch the newer Intel CPUs.
Rise of the Tomb Raider
In Rise of the Tomb Raider we are seeing the same pattern as we did at 1080p with the i5 6600k posting the highest minimum fps but the i7 6700k having the highest average and the FX-8370 trailing behind.
However once the CPUs have been overclocked the FX-8370 ends up leading albeit not by much with it posting a 33fps minimum and 44fps average, the i7-6700k is next with a 32fps minimum and 44fps average and last but not least in this case is the i5 6600k with a 31fps minimum and 43fps average.
The Witcher 3
In The Witcher 3 the results are close together with both the i5 6600k and FX-8370 posting the same minimum fps and the i7 6700k only beating it out by 1fps and with the averages both Intel chips are the same with 48fps and the FX-8370 is a little under at 45fps.
Overclocking the CPUs spread the results out a bit with the 6600k gaining a huge 20fps minimum and 15fps average, the 6700k gained an equally nice 19fps on the minimum and 12fps on the average while the 8370 gained 6fps minimum and 13fps average.
Ashes of the Singularity (DX12)
As before with Ashes of the Singularity unfortunately I cannot record the minimum fps so these results only contain the average fps.
The i5 6600k posted an average fps of 52 which was the same for the i7 6700k while the FX-8370 recorded an average of 45fps.
Now this was interesting, at 1080p the i7 6700k had a large lead over the i5 and FX once overclocked but at 1440p the i5 6600k was in fact 2fps faster than the i7 6700k which posted a 51fps average and it was 4fps faster than the FX-8370 which managed a 49fps average.
Conclusion
Well there you have it folks, I’m sure you found some of these results as surprising as I did.
Let’s break this down a little and talk about each CPUs performance
For the FX-8370 it presents a good budget option considering its overclocking ability at higher resolutions or possibly paired with a lower end graphics card but at 1080p it isn’t quite up to scratch anymore and is easily outpaced in games that take advantage of Intels faster individual cores.
The i7 6700k was a bit interesting bag with it being very fast when Hyperthreading was utilized properly but it also hampered it a bit in other games so it’s hard to recommend purely for gaming based on these results.
For me the most impressive results came from the i5 6600k, the little quad core punched above its weight matching and even outpacing the more expensive i7 6700k in a few titles, it seemed to shine most when overclocked so that is something to take into consideration.
And that concludes it all, as before I hope you found this interesting and please if you have any questions put them in the comments below.
Intel Core i7-6700K vs. AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Cpu Benchmark with benchmarks
| Intel Core i7-6700K | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | |
| 4.00 GHz | Frequency | 3.60 GHz |
| 4.20 GHz | Turbo (1 Core) | 4.40 GHz |
| 4.00 GHz | Turbo (All Cores) | 4. |
| 4 | Cores | 8 |
| Yes | Hyperthreading ? | Yes |
| Yes | Overclocking ? | Yes |
| normal | Core architecture | normal |
| Intel HD Graphics 530 | GPU | no iGPU |
| 12 | DirectX Version | |
| 3 | Max. displays | |
| Memory | DDR4-3200 | |
| 2 | Memory channels | 2 |
| Max. Memory | ||
| No | ECC | Yes |
| — | L2 Cache | — |
| 8.00 MB | L3 Cache | 32.00 MB |
| 3.0 | PCIe version | 4.0 |
| 16 | PCIe lanes | 20 |
| 14 nm | Technology | 7 nm |
| LGA 1151 | Socket | AM4 |
| 91 W | TDP | 65 W |
| VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d | Virtualization | AMD-V, SVM |
| Q3/2015 | Release date | Q3/2019 |
| show more detail | show more detail |
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies, which can also be textured and animated in the software. The Blender benchmark creates predefined scenes and measures the time (s) required for the entire scene. The shorter the time required, the better. We selected bmw27 as the benchmark scene.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The iGPU test uses the CPU internal graphic unit to execute OpenGL commands.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Benchmark. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Benchmark’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Monero Hashrate kH/s
The crypto currency Monero has been using the RandomX algorithm since November 2019. This PoW (proof of work) algorithm can only efficiently be calculated using a processor (CPU) or a graphics card (GPU). The CryptoNight algorithm was used for Monero until November 2019, but it could be calculated using ASICs. RandomX benefits from a high number of CPU cores, cache and a fast connection of the memory via as many memory channels as possible
Popular Comparision
Intel Core i7-6700K vs. AMD Ryzen 7 3700X — Cpu Benchmark Specs & Test
4. 1 of 43 rating(s)
| 1 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 9 5950X |
$ 710.0 | ||||
| 2 | 2021 | Intel Core i7-12700K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i7-12700K |
$ 470.0 | ||||
| 3 | 2021 | Intel Core i9-12900K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i9-12900K |
$ 590.0 | ||||
| 4 | 2022 | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D |
$ 450.0 | ||||
| 5 | 2021 | Intel Core i9-11900K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i9-11900K |
$ 488. |
||||
| 6 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 9 5900X |
$ 499.0 | ||||
| 7 | 2021 | Intel Core i5-12600K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i5-12600K |
$ 290.0 | ||||
| 8 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 5800X |
$ 399.0 | ||||
| 9 | 2021 | Intel Core i7-11700K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i7-11700K |
$ 410.0 | ||||
| 10 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 5600X |
$ 299.0 | ||||
| 11 | 2020 | Intel Core i9-10900K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i9-10900K |
$ 590. |
||||
| 12 | 2020 | Intel Core i7-10700K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i7-10700K |
$ 409.1 | ||||
| 13 | 2018 | Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i9-9900K |
$ 835.0 | ||||
| 14 | 2021 | Intel Core i5-11600K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i5-11600K |
$ 262.0 | ||||
| 15 | 2018 | Intel Core i9-9900 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i9-9900 |
$ 440.0 | ||||
| 16 | 2022 | Intel Core i5-12400
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i5-12400 |
$ 143.0 | ||||
| 17 | 2018 | Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-9700K |
$ 410.0 | ||||
| 18 | 2021 | Intel Core i5-11400
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i5-11400 |
$ 182.0 | ||||
| 19 | 2018 | Intel Core i7-9700F @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-9700F |
$ 368.0 | ||||
| 20 | 2020 | Intel Core i5-10600K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i5-10600K |
$ 236.8 | ||||
| 21 | 2018 | Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-8086K |
$ 553.0 | ||||
| 22 | 2018 | Intel Core i7-9700 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-9700 |
$ 330. |
||||
| 23 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-8700K @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-8700K |
$ 369.9 | ||||
| 24 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7940X @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i9-7940X |
$ 1,192.1 | ||||
| 25 | 2020 | Intel Core i5-10400
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i5-10400 |
$ 182.0 | ||||
| 26 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 9 3950X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 9 3950X |
$ 750.0 | ||||
| 27 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 9 3900X |
$ 499.0 | ||||
| 28 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 3700X |
$ 330. |
||||
| 29 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 3800X |
$ 399.0 | ||||
| 30 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 3600X |
$ 249.0 | ||||
| 31 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-9600KF @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-9600KF |
$ 215.0 | ||||
| 32 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-9600K @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-9600K |
$ 280.0 | ||||
| 33 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3600
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 3600 |
$ 199.0 | ||||
| 34 | 2022 | AMD Ryzen 7 5700X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 5700X |
$ 300. |
||||
| 35 | 2022 | AMD Ryzen 5 5500
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 5500 |
$ 160.0 | ||||
| 36 | 2022 | Intel Core i3-12300
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i3-12300 |
$ 143.0 | ||||
| 37 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-8600K |
$ 377.7 | ||||
| 38 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7900X @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i9-7900X |
$ 1,380.0 | ||||
| 39 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7980XE @ 2.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i9-7980XE |
$ 2,005.5 | ||||
| 40 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3500X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 3500X |
$ 160. |
||||
| 41 | 2022 | Intel Core i3-12100
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i3-12100 |
$ 122.0 | ||||
| 42 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-8700 |
$ 454.5 | ||||
| 43 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7920X @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i9-7920X |
$ 1,096.7 | ||||
| 44 | 2017 | Intel Core i9-7960X @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i9-7960X |
$ 2,000.0 | ||||
| 45 | 2019 | Intel Core i5-9400F @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-9400F |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 46 | 2019 | Intel Core i5-9400 @ 2. >> compare i7-6700K vs i5-9400 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 47 | 2021 | Intel Core i3-11300
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i3-11300 |
$ 143.0 | ||||
| 48 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3500
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 3500 |
$ 148.0 | ||||
| 49 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-8600 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-8600 |
$ 244.5 | ||||
| 50 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-7740X @ 4.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-7740X |
$ 349.0 | ||||
| 51 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 3 3300X |
$ 120. |
||||
| 52 | 2020 | AMD Ryzen 3 3100
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 3 3100 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 53 | 2021 | Intel Core i3-11100
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i3-11100 |
$ 122.0 | ||||
| 54 | 2020 | Intel Core i3-10300
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i3-10300 |
$ 143.0 | ||||
| 55 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X |
$ 900.0 | ||||
| 56 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-8500 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-8500 |
$ 239.0 | ||||
| 57 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-7700K |
$ 355.0 | ||||
| 58 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-7820X @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-7820X |
$ 930.0 | ||||
| 59 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4790K |
$ 307.0 | ||||
| 60 | 2020 | Intel Core i3-10100
>> compare i7-6700K vs Core i3-10100 |
$ 122.0 | ||||
| 61 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX |
$ 1,720.0 | ||||
| 62 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-7640X @ 4.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-7640X |
$ 250. |
||||
| 63 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-8400 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 64 | 2019 | Intel Core i3-9350KF @ 4.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-9350KF |
$ 224.0 | ||||
| 65 | 2019 | Intel Core i3-9320 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-9320 |
$ 162.0 | ||||
| 66 | 2019 | Intel Core i3-9100 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-9100 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 67 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-8350K @ 4.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-8350K |
$ 184.0 | ||||
| 68 | 2019 | Intel Core i3-9100F @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i3-9100F |
$ 105.0 | ||||
| 69 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-7600K @ 3.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-7600K |
$ 251.0 | ||||
| 70 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-6950X @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-6950X |
$ 1,576.0 | ||||
| 71 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
$ 680.0 | ||||
| 72 | 2015 | Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-6700K |
$ 335.0 | ||||
| 73 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-6900K @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-6900K |
$ 1,200. |
||||
| 74 | 2017 | Intel Core i7-7800X @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-7800X |
$ 370.0 | ||||
| 75 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 2700X |
$ 305.0 | ||||
| 76 | 2018 | Intel Core i3-8300 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-8300 |
$ 179.4 | ||||
| 77 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-7700 |
$ 325.1 | ||||
| 78 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-7600 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-7600 |
$ 240.0 | ||||
| 79 | 2015 | Intel Core i7-6700 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-6700 |
$ 433.7 | ||||
| 80 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-6800K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-6800K |
$ 420.0 | ||||
| 81 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-8100 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-8100 |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 82 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4770K |
$ 285.0 | ||||
| 83 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-4790 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4790 |
$ 279.0 | ||||
| 84 | 2015 | Intel Core i7-5775C @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-5775C |
$ 450. |
||||
| 85 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-5930K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-5930K |
$ 499.0 | ||||
| 86 | 2016 | Intel Core i7-6850K @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-6850K |
$ 550.0 | ||||
| 87 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 2600X |
$ 210.0 | ||||
| 88 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X |
$ 420.0 | ||||
| 89 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4770 |
$ 240.0 | ||||
| 90 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4771 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4771 |
$ 300.0 | ||||
| 91 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-4790S @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4790S |
$ 342.6 | ||||
| 92 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 7 2700
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 2700 |
$ 249.2 | ||||
| 93 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen Threadripper 1900X |
$ 350.0 | ||||
| 94 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4770S @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4770S |
$ 250.0 | ||||
| 95 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4960X @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4960X |
$ 770. |
||||
| 96 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4690 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4690 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 97 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4690K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4690K |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 98 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4690S @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4690S |
$ 269.9 | ||||
| 99 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-6600K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-6600K |
$ 288.9 | ||||
| 100 | 2016 | Intel Core i5-7500 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-7500 |
$ 210.0 | ||||
| 101 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-5820K |
$ 300.0 | ||||
| 102 | 2014 | Intel Core i7-5960X @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-5960X |
$ 770.0 | ||||
| 103 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 5 2600
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 2600 |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 104 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 1800X |
$ 250.0 | ||||
| 105 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3970X @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-3970X |
$ 954.0 | ||||
| 106 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 1600X |
$ 178. |
||||
| 107 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-7350K @ 4.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-7350K |
$ 230.0 | ||||
| 108 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4670 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4670 |
$ 188.0 | ||||
| 109 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4670K |
$ 250.0 | ||||
| 110 | 2018 | Intel Core i5-4670R @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4670R |
$ 276.0 | ||||
| 111 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-5675C @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-5675C |
$ 400.0 | ||||
| 112 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i5-6600 |
$ 220.0 | ||||
| 113 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-3770 |
$ 179.0 | ||||
| 114 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-3770K |
$ 249.0 | ||||
| 115 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-3960X @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-3960X |
$ 800.0 | ||||
| 116 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4930K |
$ 399.0 | ||||
| 117 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4590 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4590 |
$ 185. |
||||
| 118 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 7 1700X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 1700X |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 119 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-7320 @ 4.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-7320 |
$ 174.8 | ||||
| 120 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4570 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4570 |
$ 175.0 | ||||
| 121 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4590S @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4590S |
$ 198.0 | ||||
| 122 | 2017 | Intel Core i5-7400 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-7400 |
$ 213.5 | ||||
| 123 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-2700K @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-2700K |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 124 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3770S @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-3770S |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 125 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-3930K |
$ 399.0 | ||||
| 126 | 2013 | Intel Core i7-4820K @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-4820K |
$ 500.0 | ||||
| 127 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 3400G |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 128 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-7300 @ 4.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-7300 |
$ 210. |
||||
| 129 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 1500X |
$ 144.9 | ||||
| 130 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 5 1600
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 1600 |
$ 155.0 | ||||
| 131 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 2400G |
$ 159.0 | ||||
| 132 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 7 1700
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 7 1700 |
$ 190.0 | ||||
| 133 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-6500 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-6500 |
$ 234.4 | ||||
| 134 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-2600 |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 135 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-2600K |
$ 198.0 | ||||
| 136 | 2012 | Intel Core i7-3820 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-3820 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 137 | 2019 | AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 3 3200G |
$ 99.0 | ||||
| 138 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3570 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3570 |
$ 140.0 | ||||
| 139 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3570K |
$ 144. |
||||
| 140 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4570S @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4570S |
$ 221.6 | ||||
| 141 | 2016 | Intel Core i5-6402P @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-6402P |
$ 190.0 | ||||
| 142 | 2018 | AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 3 2200G |
$ 98.0 | ||||
| 143 | 2017 | Intel Core i3-7100 @ 3.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-7100 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 144 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3550 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3550 |
$ 330.0 | ||||
| 145 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3550S @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3550S |
$ 341.0 | ||||
| 146 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3570S @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3570S |
$ 285.0 | ||||
| 147 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 3 1300X
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 3 1300X |
$ 125.0 | ||||
| 148 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-2550K @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2550K |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 149 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3470 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3470 |
$ 125.0 | ||||
| 150 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3475S @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3475S |
$ 143. |
||||
| 151 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4460 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4460 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 152 | 2014 | Intel Core i5-4460S @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4460S |
$ 660.0 | ||||
| 153 | 2015 | Intel Core i5-6400 @ 2.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-6400 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 154 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4440 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4440 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 155 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4440S @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4440S |
$ 463.0 | ||||
| 156 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-2600S @ 2. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-2600S |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 157 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2500 |
$ 105.0 | ||||
| 158 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2500K |
$ 124.0 | ||||
| 159 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3450 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3450 |
$ 128.0 | ||||
| 160 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3470S @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3470S |
$ 140.1 | ||||
| 161 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4430 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4430 |
$ 180. |
||||
| 162 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 5 1400
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 5 1400 |
$ 134.0 | ||||
| 163 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3450S @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3450S |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 164 | 2017 | AMD Ryzen 3 1200
>> compare i7-6700K vs Ryzen 3 1200 |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 165 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-2450P @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2450P |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 166 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2500S @ 2.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2500S |
$ 75.0 | ||||
| 167 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-3340 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3340 |
$ 262.0 | ||||
| 168 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-4430S @ 2.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-4430S |
$ 160.0 | ||||
| 169 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-990X @ 3.47GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-990X |
$ 350.0 | ||||
| 170 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2400 |
$ 84.0 | ||||
| 171 | 2013 | Intel Core i5-3340S @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3340S |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 172 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3350P @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3350P |
$ 170. |
||||
| 173 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2320 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2320 |
$ 195.3 | ||||
| 174 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-2380P @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2380P |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 175 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3330 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3330 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 176 | 2012 | Intel Core i5-3330S @ 2.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-3330S |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 177 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-980X @ 3.33GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-980X |
$ 220.0 | ||||
| 178 | 2013 | AMD FX-9590 Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-9590 |
$ 122. |
||||
| 179 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2310 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2310 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 180 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2400S @ 2.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2400S |
$ 65.7 | ||||
| 181 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2405S @ 2.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2405S |
$ 164.4 | ||||
| 182 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-980 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-980 |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 183 | 2013 | AMD FX-9370 Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-9370 |
$ 178.9 | ||||
| 184 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-680 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i5-680 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 185 | 2014 | AMD FX-8370 Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-8370 |
$ 135.0 | ||||
| 186 | 2014 | AMD FX-8370E Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-8370E |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 187 | 2011 | Intel Core i5-2300 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-2300 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 188 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-970 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-970 |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 189 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-975 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-975 |
$ 180. |
||||
| 190 | 2012 | AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-8350 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 191 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4370 @ 3.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4370 |
$ 450.0 | ||||
| 192 | 2015 | Intel Core i3-6320 @ 3.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-6320 |
$ 160.0 | ||||
| 193 | 2013 | AMD Athlon X4 760K Quad Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon X4 760K |
$ 46.0 | ||||
| 194 | 2012 | AMD FX-8320 Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-8320 |
$ 79.5 | ||||
| 195 | 2015 | Intel Core i3-6300 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i3-6300 |
$ 143.0 | ||||
| 196 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-655K @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-655K |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 197 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-670 @ 3.47GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-670 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 198 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-880 @ 3.07GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-880 |
$ 583.0 | ||||
| 199 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-960 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-960 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 200 | 2008 | Intel Core i7-965 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-965 |
$ 140. |
||||
| 201 | 2015 | Intel Core i3-4170 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4170 |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 202 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4360 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4360 |
$ 280.0 | ||||
| 203 | 2015 | Intel Core i3-6100 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-6100 |
$ 166.1 | ||||
| 204 | 2013 | AMD FX-8300 Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-8300 |
$ 80.6 | ||||
| 205 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4160 |
$ 140.0 | ||||
| 206 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-4340 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4340 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 207 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4350 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4350 |
$ 170.0 | ||||
| 208 | 2016 | Intel Core i3-6098P @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-6098P |
$ 133.7 | ||||
| 209 | 2009 | Intel Core i5-660 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-660 |
$ 49.0 | ||||
| 210 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-870 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-870 |
$ 310.0 | ||||
| 211 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-950 @ 3.07GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-950 |
$ 245. |
||||
| 212 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme X9770 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs X9770 |
$ 1,609.0 | ||||
| 213 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Extreme X9775 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs X9775 |
$ 1,806.0 | ||||
| 214 | 2014 | AMD FX-8320E Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-8320E |
$ 98.9 | ||||
| 215 | 2011 | AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-8150 |
$ 383.5 | ||||
| 216 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X6 1100T |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 217 | 2014 | Intel Core i3-4150 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4150 |
$ 260.0 | ||||
| 218 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-4330 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4330 |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 219 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-650 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-650 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 220 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-661 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-661 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 221 | 2011 | Intel Core i7-860S @ 2.53GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-860S |
$ 200.0 | ||||
| 222 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-875K @ 2.93GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-875K |
$ 200. |
||||
| 223 | 2008 | Intel Core i7-940 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-940 |
$ 70.7 | ||||
| 224 | 2012 | AMD Athlon X4 740 Quad Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon X4 740 |
$ 277.0 | ||||
| 225 | 2011 | AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-8120 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 226 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1090T
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X6 1090T |
$ 396.1 | ||||
| 227 | 2010 | Intel Core i5-760 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-760 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 228 | 2009 | Intel Core i7-860 @ 2. >> compare i7-6700K vs i7-860 |
$ 290.0 | ||||
| 229 | 2010 | Intel Core i7-930 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-930 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 230 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E8600 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 231 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme X9650 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs X9650 |
$ 909.0 | ||||
| 232 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-4130 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-4130 |
$ 140.0 | ||||
| 233 | 2013 | AMD FX-6350 Six-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-6350 |
$ 130. |
||||
| 234 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1075T
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X6 1075T |
$ 260.0 | ||||
| 235 | 2008 | Intel Core i7-920 @ 2.67GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i7-920 |
$ 174.0 | ||||
| 236 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E8500 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 237 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 965
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 965 |
$ 59.5 | ||||
| 238 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X6 1055T |
$ 185.0 | ||||
| 239 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-3250 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i3-3250 |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 240 | 2009 | Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.67GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i5-750 |
$ 160.5 | ||||
| 241 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme Q6850 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q6850 |
$ 1,496.0 | ||||
| 242 | 2012 | AMD FX-6300 Six-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-6300 |
$ 59.0 | ||||
| 243 | 2012 | Intel Core i3-3240 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-3240 |
$ 46.0 | ||||
| 244 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-3245 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-3245 |
$ 80. |
||||
| 245 | 2018 | Intel Pentium Gold G5600 @ 3.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium Gold G5600 |
$ 100.9 | ||||
| 246 | 2011 | AMD Athlon II X3 460
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X3 460 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 247 | 2012 | AMD FX-6200 Six-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-6200 |
$ 340.0 | ||||
| 248 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 955
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 955 |
$ 130.2 | ||||
| 249 | 2011 | AMD Phenom II X4 960T
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 960T |
$ 135.0 | ||||
| 250 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X4 B97
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 B97 |
$ 90. |
||||
| 251 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1045T
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X6 1045T |
$ 175.0 | ||||
| 252 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2130 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-2130 |
$ 70.0 | ||||
| 253 | 2012 | Intel Core i3-3220 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-3220 |
$ 34.9 | ||||
| 254 | 2012 | Intel Core i3-3225 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-3225 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 255 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Duo E7500 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E7500 |
$ 15.0 | ||||
| 256 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Duo E7600 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs E7600 |
$ 120.0 | ||||
| 257 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E8400 |
$ 9.8 | ||||
| 258 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme Q6800 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q6800 |
$ 1,125.0 | ||||
| 259 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q9650 |
$ 69.8 | ||||
| 260 | 2018 | Intel Pentium Gold G5400 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium Gold G5400 |
$ 123.9 | ||||
| 261 | 2018 | Intel Pentium Gold G5500 @ 3.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium Gold G5500 |
$ 100. |
||||
| 262 | 2011 | AMD Athlon II X2 270
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 270 |
$ 24.0 | ||||
| 263 | 2012 | AMD Athlon II X2 B28
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 B28 |
$ 49.1 | ||||
| 264 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X3 455
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X3 455 |
$ 116.9 | ||||
| 265 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X4 645
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X4 645 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 266 | 2011 | AMD Phenom II X4 840
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 840 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 267 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X6 1035T
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X6 1035T |
$ 189. |
||||
| 268 | 2013 | Intel Core i3-3210 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-3210 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 269 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8300 @ 2.83GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E8300 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 270 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q9550 |
$ 49.0 | ||||
| 271 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 265
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 265 |
$ 82.9 | ||||
| 272 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X3 450
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X3 450 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 273 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X4 640
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X4 640 |
$ 80. |
||||
| 274 | 2011 | AMD Phenom II X2 565
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X2 565 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 275 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 940
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 940 |
$ 120.0 | ||||
| 276 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 945
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 945 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 277 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X4 B95
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 B95 |
$ 73.0 | ||||
| 278 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2120 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-2120 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 279 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2125 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i3-2125 |
$ 199.0 | ||||
| 280 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6850 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E6850 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 281 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E7300 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E7300 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 282 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E7400 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E7400 |
$ 29.0 | ||||
| 283 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E8200 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E8200 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 284 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs X6800 |
$ 263. |
||||
| 285 | 2010 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 @ 2.83GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q9500 |
$ 35.0 | ||||
| 286 | 2017 | Intel Pentium G4620 @ 3.70GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G4620 |
$ 105.9 | ||||
| 287 | 2016 | Intel Core i3-2102 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-2102 |
$ 58.0 | ||||
| 288 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 @ 2.83GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q9505 |
$ 190.0 | ||||
| 289 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3258 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3258 |
$ 178.3 | ||||
| 290 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G3470 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3470 |
$ 104.3 | ||||
| 291 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G4520 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G4520 |
$ 110.9 | ||||
| 292 | 2017 | Intel Pentium G4600 @ 3.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G4600 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 293 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 260
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 260 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 294 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X3 435
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X3 435 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 295 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X3 440
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X3 440 |
$ 47. |
||||
| 296 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X3 445
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X3 445 |
$ 91.0 | ||||
| 297 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X4 630
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X4 630 |
$ 43.0 | ||||
| 298 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X4 635
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X4 635 |
$ 70.0 | ||||
| 299 | 2012 | AMD Athlon II X4 641 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X4 641 |
$ 91.5 | ||||
| 300 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X2 550
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X2 550 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 301 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X2 555
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X2 555 |
$ 142. |
||||
| 302 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 820
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 820 |
$ 75.0 | ||||
| 303 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 920
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 920 |
$ 67.0 | ||||
| 304 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 925
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 925 |
$ 160.0 | ||||
| 305 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-2100 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 306 | 2011 | Intel Core i3-2105 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-2105 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 307 | 2012 | Intel Core i5 750S @ 2. >> compare i7-6700K vs i5 750S |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 308 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3450 @ 3.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3450 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 309 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3460 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3460 |
$ 288.2 | ||||
| 310 | 2017 | Intel Pentium G4560 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G4560 |
$ 103.1 | ||||
| 311 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X2 250
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 250 |
$ 39.0 | ||||
| 312 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 255
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 255 |
$ 65. |
||||
| 313 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 B24
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 B24 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 314 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X4 620
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X4 620 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 315 | 2011 | AMD Athlon II X4 631 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X4 631 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 316 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X2 545
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X2 545 |
$ 44.0 | ||||
| 317 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X2 B55
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X2 B55 |
$ 48.0 | ||||
| 318 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X3 720
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X3 720 |
$ 70. |
||||
| 319 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X3 B73
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X3 B73 |
$ 75.0 | ||||
| 320 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 810
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 810 |
$ 116.0 | ||||
| 321 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 910
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 910 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 322 | 2010 | AMD Phenom II X4 910e
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 910e |
$ 157.0 | ||||
| 323 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E6750 |
$ 13.0 | ||||
| 324 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E7200 @ 2. >> compare i7-6700K vs E7200 |
$ 75.0 | ||||
| 325 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q9450 |
$ 335.0 | ||||
| 326 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G4500 @ 3.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G4500 |
$ 85.3 | ||||
| 327 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 6400+ |
$ 260.0 | ||||
| 328 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 7850 Dual-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 7850 |
$ 209.7 | ||||
| 329 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X2 245
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 245 |
$ 35. |
||||
| 330 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 B22
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 B22 |
$ 36.0 | ||||
| 331 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X3 425
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X3 425 |
$ 104.2 | ||||
| 332 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9950 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9950 |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 333 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X3 710
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X3 710 |
$ 84.5 | ||||
| 334 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 805
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 805 |
$ 174.0 | ||||
| 335 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X4 905e
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X4 905e |
$ 212. |
||||
| 336 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E4700 @ 2.60GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E4700 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 337 | 2010 | Intel Core2 Duo E6700 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E6700 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 338 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q8400 |
$ 99.5 | ||||
| 339 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q9400 |
$ 34.0 | ||||
| 340 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G3260 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3260 |
$ 105.0 | ||||
| 341 | 2016 | AMD Athlon X4 845
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon X4 845 |
$ 50. |
||||
| 342 | 2013 | AMD FX-4350 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-4350 |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 343 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q6700 |
$ 45.0 | ||||
| 344 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 @ 2.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q8300 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 345 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.50GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q9300 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 346 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3250 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3250 |
$ 110.0 | ||||
| 347 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G3420 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3420 |
$ 110.0 | ||||
| 348 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G3430 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3430 |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 349 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3440 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3440 |
$ 159.9 | ||||
| 350 | 2015 | Intel Pentium G4400 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G4400 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 351 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 7750 Dual-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 7750 |
$ 148.7 | ||||
| 352 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X2 215
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 215 |
$ 12. |
||||
| 353 | 2010 | AMD Athlon II X2 220
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 220 |
$ 32.2 | ||||
| 354 | 2009 | AMD Athlon II X2 240
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon II X2 240 |
$ 35.0 | ||||
| 355 | 2017 | AMD Athlon X4 950
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon X4 950 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 356 | 2012 | AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-4300 |
$ 53.4 | ||||
| 357 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9750 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9750 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 358 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9850 |
$ 50. |
||||
| 359 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E6600 |
$ 15.0 | ||||
| 360 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G2140 @ 3.30GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G2140 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 361 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5800+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5800+ |
$ 25.0 | ||||
| 362 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 6000+ |
$ 46.0 | ||||
| 363 | 2016 | AMD Athlon X4 880K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon X4 880K |
$ 90.0 | ||||
| 364 | 2013 | AMD FX-4200 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-4200 |
$ 228. |
||||
| 365 | 2010 | AMD Phenom 9450e Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9450e |
$ 105.0 | ||||
| 366 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9550 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9550 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 367 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 9600B Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9600B |
$ 147.2 | ||||
| 368 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9650 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9650 |
$ 55.0 | ||||
| 369 | 2009 | AMD Phenom II X3 705e
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom II X3 705e |
$ 152.3 | ||||
| 370 | 2010 | Intel Core i3-560 @ 3. >> compare i7-6700K vs i3-560 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 371 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E4600 @ 2.40GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E4600 |
$ 158.0 | ||||
| 372 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E6550 |
$ 15.0 | ||||
| 373 | 2014 | Intel Pentium G3240 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3240 |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 374 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5200+ |
$ 53.1 | ||||
| 375 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5400+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5400+ |
$ 53. |
||||
| 376 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5600+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5600+ |
$ 150.0 | ||||
| 377 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 7550 Dual-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 7550 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 378 | 2012 | AMD FX-4170 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-4170 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 379 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 8600 Triple-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 8600 |
$ 53.0 | ||||
| 380 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 8600B Triple-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 8600B |
$ 53.0 | ||||
| 381 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 8650 Triple-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 8650 |
$ 50. |
||||
| 382 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9500 |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 383 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9600 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 384 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E6400 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 385 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6420 @ 2.13GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E6420 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 386 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E4500 @ 2.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E4500 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 387 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2. >> compare i7-6700K vs Q6600 |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 388 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Q8200 |
$ 23.0 | ||||
| 389 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G2130 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G2130 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 390 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G3220 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G3220 |
$ 120.0 | ||||
| 391 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5200+ |
$ 53.1 | ||||
| 392 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5400+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5400+ |
$ 53. |
||||
| 393 | 2014 | AMD Athlon X4 860K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon X4 860K |
$ 64.0 | ||||
| 394 | 2016 | AMD Athlon X4 870K
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon X4 870K |
$ 80.0 | ||||
| 395 | 2011 | AMD FX-4100 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-4100 |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 396 | 2012 | AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs FX-4130 |
$ 76.0 | ||||
| 397 | 2010 | Intel Core i3-550 @ 3.20GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-550 |
$ 180.0 | ||||
| 398 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5000+ |
$ 331. |
||||
| 399 | 2009 | AMD Athlon Dual Core 5000B
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon Dual 5000B |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 400 | 2015 | AMD Athlon X4 840
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon X4 840 |
$ 78.7 | ||||
| 401 | 2011 | AMD E2-3200 APU
>> compare i7-6700K vs E2-3200 APU |
$ 8.0 | ||||
| 402 | 2008 | AMD Phenom 8450 Triple-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 8450 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 403 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 9350e Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9350e |
$ 3,382.1 | ||||
| 404 | 2009 | AMD Phenom X3 8550
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom X3 8550 |
$ 170. |
||||
| 405 | 2010 | Intel Core i3-540 @ 3.07GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-540 |
$ 21.0 | ||||
| 406 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G2030 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G2030 |
$ 41.0 | ||||
| 407 | 2012 | Intel Pentium G2120 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G2120 |
$ 46.0 | ||||
| 408 | 2012 | Intel Pentium G870 @ 3.10GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G870 |
$ 97.0 | ||||
| 409 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5000+ |
$ 331.5 | ||||
| 410 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 5000 |
$ 100. |
||||
| 411 | 2010 | AMD Athlon 5200 Dual-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 5200 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 412 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4600+ |
$ 360.0 | ||||
| 413 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4800+ |
$ 460.0 | ||||
| 414 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 9150e Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9150e |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 415 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E4400 @ 2.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E4400 |
$ 9.0 | ||||
| 416 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6320 @ 1. >> compare i7-6700K vs E6320 |
$ 50.0 | ||||
| 417 | 2011 | Intel Pentium G860 @ 3.00GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G860 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 418 | 2009 | AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 5000 |
$ 100.0 | ||||
| 419 | 2010 | AMD Athlon 5200 Dual-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 5200 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 420 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4600+ |
$ 360.0 | ||||
| 421 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4800+ |
$ 460. |
||||
| 422 | 2010 | Intel Core i3-530 @ 2.93GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs i3-530 |
$ 20.0 | ||||
| 423 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G2020 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G2020 |
$ 32.9 | ||||
| 424 | 2011 | Intel Pentium G850 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G850 |
$ 30.0 | ||||
| 425 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4200+ |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 426 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4400+ |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 427 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 8250e Triple-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 8250e |
$ 47. |
||||
| 428 | 2009 | AMD Phenom 9100e Quad-Core
>> compare i7-6700K vs Phenom 9100e |
$ 40.0 | ||||
| 429 | 2009 | Intel Core2 Duo E4300 @ 1.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E4300 |
$ 158.0 | ||||
| 430 | 2008 | Intel Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs E6300 |
$ 13.0 | ||||
| 431 | 2013 | Intel Pentium G2010 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G2010 |
$ 34.9 | ||||
| 432 | 2012 | Intel Pentium G645 @ 2.90GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G645 |
$ 95.0 | ||||
| 433 | 2011 | Intel Pentium G840 @ 2. >> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G840 |
$ 35.0 | ||||
| 434 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4200+ |
$ 130.0 | ||||
| 435 | 2008 | AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+
>> compare i7-6700K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4400+ |
$ 60.0 | ||||
| 436 | 2012 | Intel Pentium G640 @ 2.80GHz
>> compare i7-6700K vs Pentium G640 |
$ 25.0 |
CPU — Prozessor Vergleich und Benchmarks
| AMD FX-8350 | Intel Core i7-6700K | |
| 4.00 GHz | Taktfrequenz | 4.00 GHz |
| 4. |
Turbo (1 Kern) | 4.20 GHz |
| 4.10 GHz | Turbo (alle Kerne) | 4.00 GHz |
| 8 | Kerne | 4 |
| Nein | Hyperthreading | Ja |
| Ja | Übertaktbar ? | Ja |
| 8 MB | Cache | 8 MB |
| Grafik | Intel HD Graphics 530 | |
| Grafiktakt | 0.35 GHz | |
| Kein Turbo | Grafiktakt (Turbo) | 1.15 GHz |
| Generation | 9 | |
| DirectX Version | 12.0 | |
| 0 | Max. Bildschirme | 3 |
| Einheiten | 24 | |
| Nein | Codec h364 | De- / Enkodieren |
| Nein | Codec JPEG | De- / Enkodieren |
| Nein | Codec h365 8bit | De- / Enkodieren |
| Nein | Codec h365 10bit | Nein |
| Nein | Codec VP8 | De- / Enkodieren |
| Nein | Codec VP9 | Dekodieren |
| Nein | Codec VC-1 | Dekodieren |
| Nein | Codec AVC | De- / Enkodieren |
| DDR3-1866 | Arbeitsspeicher | DDR4-2133 |
| 2 | Speicherkanäle | 2 |
| Ja | ECC | Nein |
| PCIe Version | 3. |
|
| 0 | PCIe Leitungen | 16 |
| Vishera | Architektur | Skylake |
| 32nm | Fertigung | 14nm |
| AM3+ | Sockel | LGA 1151 |
| 125W | TDP | 91W |
| Ja | AES-NI | Ja |
| AMD-V | Virtualisierung | VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d |
| Q4/2012 | Erscheinungsdatum | Q3/2015 |
| ca. 170 Euro | Preis | ca. 420 Euro |
|
|
|
|
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench R11.5 ist ein Benchmark zur Leistungsmessung des Prozessors. Er basiert auf der Cinema 4D Suite, einem weltweit eingesetzten Programm, das benutzt wird um 3D-Inhalte und Formen zu generieren. Der Single-Core Test nutzt nur einen CPU-Kern, die Anzahl der Kerne sowie Hyperthreading beeinflussen das Ergebnis nicht.
8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)
4x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz) HT
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R11.5 ist ein Benchmark zur Leistungsmessung des Prozessors. Er basiert auf der Cinema 4D Suite, einem weltweit eingesetzten Programm, das benutzt wird um 3D-Inhalte und Formen zu generieren. Der Multi-Core Test bezieht alle CPU-Kerne mit ein und zieht einen großen Nutzen aus Hyperthreading.
8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)
4x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz) HT
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU)
Beim iGPU-Test wird die Prozessoreigene Grafikeinheit benutzt um per OpenGL Berechnungen durchzuführen.
8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)
4x 4 GHz (4. 2 GHz) HT
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 ist die Weiterentwicklung von Cinebench 11.5 und basiert ebenso auf der Cinema 4D Suite, einem weltweit eingesetzten Programm, das benutzt wird um 3D-Inhalte und Formen zu generieren. Der Single-Core Test nutzt nur einen CPU-Kern, die Anzahl der Kerne sowie Hyperthreading beeinflussen das Ergebnis nicht.
8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)
4x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz) HT
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 ist die Weiterentwicklung von Cinebench 11.5 und basiert ebenso auf der Cinema 4D Suite, einem weltweit eingesetzten Programm, das benutzt wird um 3D-Inhalte und Formen zu generieren. Der Multi-Core Test bezieht alle CPU-Kerne mit ein und zieht einen großen Nutzen aus Hyperthreading.
8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)
4x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz) HT
Passmark CPU Mark
Beim PassMark CPU Mark werden unter anderem Primzahlberechnungen durchgeführt um die Leistung des Prozessors zu bestimmen. Es werden alle CPU-Kerne sowie Hyperthreading benutzt.
8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)
4x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz) HT
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Der Geekbench 3 Benchmark misst die Leistung des Prozessors und bezieht dabei auch den Arbeitsspeicher mit ein. Ein schnellerer Arbeitsspeicher kann das Ergebnis stark verbessern. Der Single-Core Test nutzt nur einen CPU-Kern, die Anzahl der Kerne sowie Hyperthreading beeinflussen das Ergebnis nicht.
8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)
4x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz) HT
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Der Geekbench 3 Benchmark misst die Leistung des Prozessors und bezieht dabei auch den Arbeitsspeicher mit ein. Ein schnellerer Arbeitsspeicher kann das Ergebnis stark verbessern. Der Multi-Core Test bezieht alle CPU-Kerne mit ein und zieht einen großen Nutzen aus Hyperthreading.
8x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz)
4x 4 GHz (4.2 GHz) HT
Die häufigsten Vergleiche mit diesen Prozessoren
Zurück zum CPU-Vergleich
Hinweis: Wir übernehmen keine Gewähr für die Richtigkeit der hier angezeigten Informationen.
AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i7-6700: What is the difference?
35 BALLLA
AMD FX-8350
52 BALLLA
Intel Core i7-6700
Winter with
VS
64 Facts compared to
AMD FX-8350 9000 9000
Intel Core i7-67-6700 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 Is FX-8350 better than Intel Core i7-6700?
- 2x higher CPU speed?
8 x 4GHz vs 4 x 4GHz - 7MB more L2 cache?
8MB vs 1MB - 128KB more L1 cache?
384KB vs 256KB - Has an unlocked multiplier?
- 0.75MB/core more L2 cache per core?
1MB/core vs 0.25MB/core - Has FMA4?
Why is Intel Core i7-6700 better than AMD FX-8350?
- 267MHz higher RAM speed?
2133MHz vs 1866MHz - 10°C higher than maximum operating temperature?
71°C vs 61°C - Smaller 18nm semiconductors?
14nm vs 32nm - 35.
76% higher PassMark score?
8045 vs 5926 - 60W below TDP?
65W vs 125W - 1 newer PCI Express (PCIe) version?
3 vs 2 - Has integrated graphics?
- 13.1GB/s more memory bandwidth?
34.1GB/s vs 21GB/s
What are the most popular comparisons?
AMD FX-8350
VS
AMD RYZEN 5 3600
Intel Core i7-6700
Intel Core i7-7700 9000 Intel Core i7-6700
vs
Intel Core i5-9400
AMD FX-8350
vs
AMD FX-6300
Intel Core i7-6700
3 vs
3
Intel Core i7-6700t
AMD FX-8350
VS
Intel Core i7-3770
Intel Core i7-6700
VS
Intel Core i5-6500
AMD FX-8350 9
AMD RYZEN 5 5500U
Intel Core i7-6700
VS
Intel Core i3-8100
AMD FX-8350
VS
AMD FX-8370
Intel Core i7-67-6000 9000 VS 9000 VS Core i5-7500
AMD FX-8350
VS
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i7-6700
VS
Intel Core i7-4770
AMD FX-8350
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
INTEL CORE ANTL
VS
Intel Core i7-3770
AMD FX-8350
VS
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Intel Core i7-6700
Intel Core i5-8500
AMD FX-8350 9
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
Intel Core i7-6700
VS
AMD RYZEN 5 3600
Costs Complexes
Users Reviews
AMD FX-8350 9000 904 9000 /10
5 User reviews
Intel Core i7-6700
0 User reviews
Intel Core i7-6700
0. 0 /10
03 User reviews
0111 Functions
The price ratio
/10
5 Votes
reviews is not
9.6 /10
5 VOTES
Reviews yet
9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
Energy efficiency
8.6 /10
5 Votes
Reviews are not
Productive
1. Skurvity of the central processor
8 x 4GHZ
4 X 4GHZ
9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 processor shows as much as much processing cycles per second can be performed by a processor, considering all of its cores (processors). It is calculated by adding the clock speeds of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors, each group of cores.
2nd processor thread
More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.
3.speed turbo clock
4.2GHz
When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
4. Has unlocked multiplier
✔AMD FX-8350
✖Intel Core i7-6700
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier and are easier to overclock, allowing for better performance in games and other applications.
5.L2 Cache
More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
6.L3 cache
More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
7.L1 cache
More L1 cache results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
8.core L2
1MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
9.core L3
1MB/core
2MB/core
More data can be stored in L3 scratchpad for access by each processor core.
Memory
1.RAM speed
1866MHz
2133MHz
Can support faster memory which speeds up system performance.
2.max memory bandwidth
21GB/s
34.1GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3. DDR version
DDR (Dynamic Dynamic Random Access Memory Double Data Rate) is the most common type of RAM. New versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy efficient.
4.Memory channels
More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.
5.maximum memory capacity
Maximum memory capacity (RAM).
6.baud rate bus
5.4GT/s
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7. Supports memory troubleshooting code
✖AMD FX-8350
✖Intel Core i7-6700
Memory error recovery code can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-6700)
A newer version of eMMC — built-in flash memory card — speeds up the memory interface, has a positive effect on device performance, for example, when transferring files from a computer to internal memory via USB.
9.bus frequency
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-6700)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between various components of a computer or device
Geotagging
1. PassMark result
This test measures processor performance using multi-threading.
2. PassMark result (single)
This test measures processor performance using a thread of execution.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi-core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor. (Source: Primate Labs,2022)
4. Cinebench R20 result (multi-core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-6700)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark that measures the performance of a multi-core processor by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 result (single core)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-6700)
Cinebench R20 is a test to evaluate the performance of a single core processor when rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform test that measures the single core performance of a processor. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7. Blender test result (bmw27)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-6700)
The Blender benchmark (bmw27) measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
8.Blender result (classroom)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-6700)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures CPU performance by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render a scene in a shorter time.
9.performance per watt
This means that the processor is more efficient, giving more performance per watt of power used.
Functions
1.uses multi-threading
✖AMD FX-8350
✔Intel Core i7-6700
processor cores into logical cores, also known as threads. Thus, each core can run two instruction streams at the same time.
2. Has AES
✔AMD FX-8350
✔Intel Core i7-6700
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3. Has AVX
✔AMD FX-8350
✔Intel Core i7-6700
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, and to improve the performance of the Linux RAID program.
4.Version SSE
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5. Has F16C
✔AMD FX-8350
✔Intel Core i7-6700
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as image contrast adjustment or volume control.
6.bits transmitted at the same time
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-6700)
NEON provides faster media processing such as MP3 listening.
7. Has MMX
✔AMD FX-8350
✔Intel Core i7-6700
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting image contrast or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖AMD FX-8350
✖Intel Core i7-6700
Technology is integrated into the processor to ensure device security when using features such as mobile payments and streaming video using Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology ).
9.interface width
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD FX-8350)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Intel Core i7-6700)
The processor can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), which means the processor performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which CPUs are better?
Comparison of Intel Core i7-6700K and AMD FX-8350
Comparative analysis of Intel Core i7-6700K and AMD FX-8350 processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphic interfaces, Picture quality in graphics, Graphics API support, Compatibility, Peripherals, Security and reliability, Technology, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T- Rex (Fps).
Intel Core i7-6700K
versus
AMD FX-8350
Benefits
Reasons to choose Intel Core i7-6700K
- Newer processor, release dates approx. cores: 64°C vs 61°C
- Newer CPU manufacturing process allows for more powerful but lower power consumption: 14 nm vs 32 nm SOI
- About 37% less power consumption: 91 Watt vs 125 Watt
- About 60% more performance in PassMark — Single thread mark benchmark: 2520 vs 1578
- About 50% more performance in PassMark — CPU mark benchmark: 8974 vs 5995
- 2x more performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 1148 vs 566
- About 62% more performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 4458 vs 2751
- About 58% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score: 4933 vs 3132
- 4.
6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 101.6 vs 21.912
- about 75% more in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) benchmark: 0.743 vs 0.424
- 2.5 times more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s): 2.939 vs 1.199
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) about 3% higher: 7.351 vs 7.137
| Release date | 5 August 2015 vs 23 October 2012 |
| Maximum core temperature | 64°C vs 61°C |
| Process | 14 nm vs 32 nm SOI |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 91 Watt vs 125 Watt |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2520 vs 1578 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 8974 vs 5995 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 1148 vs 566 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 4458 vs 2751 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 4933 vs 3132 |
| CompuBench 1. |
101.6 vs 21.912 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.743 vs 0.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 2.939 vs 1.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.351 vs 7.137 |
Reasons to choose AMD FX-8350
- 4 more cores, the ability to run more applications at the same time: 8 vs 4
- L1 cache is about 50% larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- Cache L2 is 8 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- Performance in the CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection benchmark (mPixels/s) is approximately 60% higher: 9.
886 vs 6.186
| Number of cores | 8 vs 4 |
| Level 1 cache | 384 KB vs 256 KB |
| Level 2 cache | 8MB vs 1MB |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 9.886 vs 6.186 |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: Intel Core i7-6700K
CPU 2: AMD FX-8350
| PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
||||
| PassMark — CPU mark |
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score |
|
||||
| CompuBench 1. |
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
|||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
||||
| CompuBench 1. |
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
| Name | Intel Core i7-6700K | AMD FX-8350 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2520 | 1578 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 8974 | 5995 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 1148 | 566 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 4458 | 2751 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 4933 | 3132 |
| CompuBench 1. |
6.186 | 9.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 101.6 | 21.912 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.743 | 0.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 2.939 | 1.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.351 | 7.137 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1760 | |
| GFXBench 4. |
3294 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1760 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3294 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 |
Feature comparison
| Intel Core i7-6700K | AMD FX-8350 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Skylake | Vishera |
| Issue date | August 5, 2015 | October 23, 2012 |
| Price at first issue date | $339 | |
| Place in the rating | 858 | 1723 |
| Price now | $316. |
$79.99 |
| Processor Number | i7-6700K | |
| Series | 6th Generation Intel® Core™ i7 Processors | AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors |
| Status | Discontinued | |
| Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 10.33 | 32.95 |
| Applicability | Desktop | Desktop |
| Family | AMD FX-Series Processors | |
| OPN PIB | FD8350FRHKBOX | |
| OPN Tray | FD8350FRW8KHK | |
| Support 64 bit | ||
| Base frequency | 4. |
4GHz |
| Bus Speed | 8 GT/s DMI3 | |
| Level 1 cache | 256KB | 384KB |
| Level 2 cache | 1MB | 8MB |
| Level 3 cache | 8MB | 8MB |
| Process | 14 nm | 32nm SOI |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | |
| Maximum core temperature | 64°C | 61°C |
| Maximum frequency | 4. |
4.2 GHz |
| Number of cores | 4 | 8 |
| Number of QPI Links | 0 | |
| Number of threads | 8 | 8 |
| Unlocked | ||
| Crystal area | 315 mm | |
| Voltage P0 Vcore | Min: 1.2 V — Max: 1.4 V | |
| Number of transistors | 1200 Million | |
| Maximum number of memory channels | 2 | |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 34. |
|
| Maximum memory size | 64GB | |
| Supported memory types | DDR4-1866/2133, DDR3L-1333/1600 @ 1.35V | DDR3 |
| Supported memory frequency | 1866 MHz | |
| Device ID | 0x1912 | |
| Graphics base frequency | 350 MHz | |
| Graphics max dynamic frequency | 1.15 GHz | |
| Maximum GPU clock | 1. |
|
| Intel® Clear Video Technology HD | ||
| Intel® Clear Video Technology | ||
| Intel® InTru™ 3D Technology | ||
| Intel® Quick Sync Video | ||
| Video memory size | 64GB | |
| Integrated graphics | Intel® HD Graphics 530 | |
| DisplayPort | ||
| DVI | ||
| eDP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum number of monitors supported | 3 | |
| WiDi support | ||
| 4K support | ||
| Maximum resolution via DisplayPort | [email protected] | |
| Maximum resolution via eDP | [email protected] | |
| Maximum resolution via HDMI 1. |
[email protected] | |
| Maximum resolution via VGA | N/A | |
| Maximum resolution via WiDi | 1080p | |
| DirectX | 12 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Maximum number of processors in | 1 | 1 |
| Package Size | 37. |
|
| Supported sockets | FCLGA1151 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 91 Watt | 125 Watt |
| Thermal Solution | PCG 2015D (130W) | |
| Number of PCI Express lanes | 16 | |
| PCI Express revision | 3.0 | n/a |
| PCIe configurations | Up to 1×16, 2×8, 1×8+2×4 | |
| Scalability | 1S Only | |
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Identity Protection Technology | ||
| Intel® Memory Protection Extensions (Intel® MPX) | ||
| Intel® OS Guard | ||
| Intel® Secure Key Technology | ||
| Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) | ||
| Secure Boot | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Extended instructions | Intel® SSE4. |
|
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | ||
| Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported | ||
| Intel® Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP) | ||
| Intel® TSX-NI | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | ||
| Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| Fused Multiply-Add (FMA) | ||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
| Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) |
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X vs AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i7-6700K
::>Processors
>2017
> AMD Ryzen 7 1700X vs AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i7-6700K — Quick 12 Game Comparison on Radeon RX 480 8GB
03-25-2017
Page 1
Page 2
One page
The hottest topic of the first quarter of 2017 is the release of AMD Ryzen 7 processors. And already the first tests confirm their high level of performance. They look especially good in synthetic benchmarks, resource-intensive applications and in multitasking mode. However, many expect to assemble a gaming system based on them. Is such a step justified right now, or is it worth waiting for BIOS optimizations and the release of more affordable representatives of the AMD Ryzen line? This is what we will try to figure out.
BRAIN Computers has kindly made available to us for a short time their new BRAIN TOP GAMER C70 desktop computer with a Ryzen 7 1700X CPU. However, the preparation of several previous materials on it took almost all the time, so the gameplay test was actually done in the last hours before the return. As a result, there are not so many games, but they will be enough for a preliminary conclusion.
And for greater clarity and evaluation of the work done in Ryzen, we decided to compare the results obtained with systems based on the 8-core AMD FX-8350 and 4-core Intel Core i7-6700K, which worked in nominal modes, that is, without manual overclocking. At one time they were top representatives, and for many users these CPUs still work properly. Of course, it would be better to compare with more current competitors in the face of the FX-8370, Core i7-7700k and Core i7-6800K, but we simply do not have them in the test lab.
And now a little about stands. The BRAIN TOP GAMER C70 desktop has been upgraded with DDR4-2400 RAM. The AMD FX-8350 was paired with an ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer motherboard and DDR3-1866 MHz RAM. In turn, the Intel Core i7-6700K worked on the ASUS MAXIMUS VIII RANGER motherboard along with DDR4-2400 MHz RAM. In all cases, 8 GB in 2-channel mode was used.
The role of the video card was performed by HIS RX 480 IceQ X² Roaring OC 8GB. Its GPU has a slight factory overclock. It should also be recalled that only the PCI Express 2.0 interface is supported on the Socket AM3 + platform, but the performance drop compared to PCIe 3.0 usually does not exceed an error of
Almost all games will be launched at Full HD resolution in two modes: with maximum and minimum graphics settings, in order to fully evaluate the performance of not only the video card, but also the processor itself.
In DiRT Rally with a very high preset, from the first frames you can see that the FX-8350 could not load the video card to 100%. The other two competitors had no problems with this. At first, the Core i7 took the lead, but later Ryzen managed to even out the situation. According to the test results, the AMD FX-8350 gave out an average of 72 FPS, Ryzen provided 56% more or 112 frames / s, and the Core i7 gave out another 2 FPS more, that is, 114. At the minimum, the gap is also significant: 50 FPS for AMD FX, 84 FPS or 68% more for Ryzen, 98 FPS for Core i7, which is 16% more than Ryzen.
When switching to a very low preset, the Core i7 again takes the lead and uses the graphics card resources most efficiently. This is confirmed by the test results. AMD FX averaged 178 FPS, Ryzen reached 311 FPS, up 75%, and Core i7 averaged 376 FPS, or 21% better than Ryzen. The minimum values also correspond to this trend: 160 fps for AMD FX-8350, 259FPS which is 62% higher for AMD Ryzen 7 1700X and 342 FPS for Core i7-6700K which is 32% better than Ryzen.
Total War WARHAMMER in DirectX 12 mode at ultra quality settings pleased with more efficient use of all processor threads. However, only the Core i7 was able to fully load the video card, and the models from AMD could not cope with this. Although Ryzen looks better than FX. As a result, the FX-8350 averaged 54 fps. Ryzen has increased to 74 FPS or 36%. Core i7 delivered 82 FPS, or 11% more than Ryzen 7. AMD FX’s estimated minimum is 36 FPS, Ryzen’s is about 50, and Core i7’s is 54 FPS.
After switching to the low settings profile, Ryzen and Core i7 averaged about the same: 144 vs. 146 FPS, respectively. In turn, AMD FX produced only 124 frames / s, which is 16 — 18% less than the other two competitors. Estimated minimum values were: 103 FPS for the FX-8350, 126 for the Ryzen and 137 for the Core i7. The difference between them was 22% and 9%, respectively.
Far Cry Primal at ultra settings is very demanding on the resources of the video card, so it was she who limited the potential of the processors. Hence the slight difference in the final scores. The average frame rate is in the usual sequence: 58 frames / s for AMD FX, 61 for Ryzen and 62 for Core i7. The minimum figures are more interesting: 41 for AMD FX, 47 or 15% more for Core i7 and 49 or another 4% more for AMD Ryzen.
Running this game at the lowest graphics preset showed that only the Core i7 was able to load the graphics card to the maximum. Therefore, it was he who emerged victorious from this test. On average we have 79The FX-8350 has 94 FPS or 19% more FPS on AMD Ryzen and 118 FPS or 26% more on the Core i7. A similar trend can be traced to the minimum performance: 59 vs. 73 vs. 107 fps. The difference between the pairs was 24% and 47%, respectively.
Moving on to Rainbow Six Siege . At ultra settings, all three systems hit the GPU, so the difference isn’t that big. We averaged 131 FPS with AMD FX and Ryzen and 132 fps with the Core i7. According to the minimum indicator, Core i7 and Ryzen were already issued 94 FPS, while for AMD FX it dropped to 80 fps, that is, by 17%.
With a low profile graphics settings, only Ryzen and Core i7 were able to load the video card to the maximum, which was embodied in their advantage in the test. AMD FX averaged 206 fps, with Ryzen it rose to 241 FPS or 17%, and for Core i7 it reached 249 fps or 3% higher than Ryzen. At the final minimum, the difference is even more significant: 99 FPS for AMD FX, 136 fps or 37% more for the Ryzen 7 1700X and 152 FPS or 12% more for the Core i7-6700K.
Amd fx 8350 vs. intel • Web cheat sheet for internet entrepreneurs!
Contents
- 1 Why is AMD FX-8350 better than Intel Core i7-4770?
- 2 Why is Intel Core i7-4770 better than AMD FX-8350?
- 2.1 What are the most popular comparisons?
- 3 General information
- 4 Performance
- 5 Memory
- 6 Features
- 7 Benefits
- 7.1 Reasons to choose Intel Core i7-4790S
- 7.2 Reasons to choose AMD FX-8350
- 8 Benchmark comparison
- 8.
1 Recommended reading
- 8.
their performance. They look especially good in synthetic benchmarks, resource-intensive applications and in multitasking mode. However, many expect to assemble a gaming system based on them. Is such a step justified right now, or is it worth waiting for BIOS optimizations and the release of more affordable representatives of the AMD Ryzen line? This is what we will try to figure out.
BRAIN Computers has kindly made available to us for a short time their new BRAIN TOP GAMER C70 desktop computer with a Ryzen 7 1700X CPU. However, the preparation of several previous materials on it took almost all the time, so the gameplay test was actually done in the last hours before the return. As a result, there are not so many games, but they will be enough for a preliminary conclusion.
And for greater clarity and evaluation of the work done in Ryzen, we decided to compare the results obtained with systems based on the 8-core AMD FX-8350 and 4-core Intel Core i7-6700K, which worked in nominal modes, that is, without manual overclocking. At one time they were top representatives, and for many users these CPUs still work properly. Of course, it would be better to compare with more current competitors in the face of the FX-8370, Core i7-7700k and Core i7-6800K, but we simply do not have them in the test lab.
And now a little about stands. The BRAIN TOP GAMER C70 desktop has been upgraded with DDR4-2400 RAM. The AMD FX-8350 was paired with an ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer motherboard and DDR3-1866 MHz RAM. In turn, the Intel Core i7-6700K worked on the ASUS MAXIMUS VIII RANGER motherboard along with DDR4-2400 MHz RAM. In all cases, 8 GB in 2-channel mode was used.
The role of the video card was performed by HIS RX 480 IceQ X² Roaring OC 8GB. Its GPU has a slight factory overclock. It should also be recalled that only the PCI Express 2.0 interface is supported on the Socket AM3 + platform, but the performance drop compared to PCIe 3.0 usually does not exceed an error of
Almost all games will be launched at Full HD resolution in two modes: with maximum and minimum graphics settings, in order to fully evaluate the performance of not only the video card, but also the processor itself.
In DiRT Rally with a very high preset, from the first frames you can see that the FX-8350 could not load the video card to 100%. The other two competitors had no problems with this. At first, the Core i7 took the lead, but later Ryzen managed to even out the situation. According to the test results, the AMD FX-8350 gave out an average of 72 FPS, Ryzen provided 56% more or 112 frames / s, and the Core i7 gave out another 2 FPS more, that is, 114. At the minimum, the gap is also significant: 50 FPS for AMD FX, 84 FPS or 68% more for Ryzen, 98 FPS for Core i7, which is 16% more than Ryzen.
When switching to a very low preset, the Core i7 again takes the lead and uses the graphics card resources most efficiently. This is confirmed by the test results. AMD FX averaged 178 FPS, Ryzen reached 311 FPS, up 75%, and Core i7 averaged 376 FPS, or 21% better than Ryzen. The minimum values also correspond to this trend: 160 fps for AMD FX-8350, 259FPS which is 62% higher for AMD Ryzen 7 1700X and 342 FPS for Core i7-6700K which is 32% better than Ryzen.
Total War WARHAMMER in DirectX 12 mode at ultra quality settings pleased with more efficient use of all processor threads. However, only the Core i7 was able to fully load the video card, and the models from AMD could not cope with this. Although Ryzen looks better than FX. As a result, the FX-8350 averaged 54 fps. Ryzen has increased to 74 FPS or 36%. Core i7 delivered 82 FPS, or 11% more than Ryzen 7. AMD FX’s estimated minimum is 36 FPS, Ryzen’s is about 50, and Core i7’s is 54 FPS.
After switching to the low settings profile, Ryzen and Core i7 averaged about the same: 144 vs. 146 FPS, respectively. In turn, AMD FX produced only 124 frames / s, which is 16 — 18% less than the other two competitors. Estimated minimum values were: 103 FPS for the FX-8350, 126 for the Ryzen and 137 for the Core i7. The difference between them was 22% and 9%, respectively.
Far Cry Primal at ultra settings is very demanding on the resources of the video card, so it was she who limited the potential of the processors. Hence the slight difference in the final scores. The average frame rate is in the usual sequence: 58 frames / s for AMD FX, 61 for Ryzen and 62 for Core i7. The minimum figures are more interesting: 41 for AMD FX, 47 or 15% more for Core i7 and 49 or another 4% more for AMD Ryzen.
Running this game at the lowest graphics preset showed that only the Core i7 was able to load the graphics card to the maximum. Therefore, it was he who emerged victorious from this test. On average we have 79The FX-8350 has 94 FPS or 19% more FPS on AMD Ryzen and 118 FPS or 26% more on the Core i7. A similar trend can be traced to the minimum performance: 59 vs. 73 vs. 107 fps. The difference between the pairs was 24% and 47%, respectively.
Moving on to Rainbow Six Siege . At ultra settings, all three systems hit the GPU, so the difference isn’t that big. We averaged 131 FPS with AMD FX and Ryzen and 132 fps with the Core i7. According to the minimum indicator, Core i7 and Ryzen were already issued 94 FPS, while for AMD FX it dropped to 80 fps, that is, by 17%.
With a low profile graphics settings, only Ryzen and Core i7 were able to load the video card to the maximum, which was embodied in their advantage in the test. AMD FX averaged 206 fps, with Ryzen it rose to 241 FPS or 17%, and for Core i7 it reached 249 fps or 3% higher than Ryzen. At the final minimum, the difference is even more significant: 99 FPS for AMD FX, 136 fps or 37% more for the Ryzen 7 1700X and 152 FPS or 12% more for the Core i7-6700K.
The maximum settings in The Division with DirectX 12 and disabled vertical synchronization gave an unexpected result: during the benchmark, AMD FX showed the best result in some places, although everything again rested on the capabilities of the video card. The final result turned out to be almost a draw: 65 FPS for Ryzen and 66 for AMD FX and Core i7. At the same time, the maximum processor load was for AMD FX, and the minimum for Ryzen 7.
After switching to the minimum settings, the Core i7 won the palm, and AMD FX worked almost at the limit of its capabilities, but could not press the leader’s position. In turn, Ryzen showed decent results with a low load of computational threads. The FX averaged 150 FPS, Ryzen 156.5 FPS or 4.5% more, and the Core i7 delivered 167.5 fps or 7% more than Ryzen.
Rise of the Tomb Raider at a very high preset in DirectX 12 mode is very demanding in both GPU and CPU capabilities. Therefore, AMD FX worked at its limit in places and did not have time to load the video card. With Ryzen and Core i7, this did not happen. However, in the geothermal valley scene, it is clear that both AMD processors do not always have time to fill the picture with the required number of graphic objects, that is, grass and trees in some places are loaded at the last moment. The overall performance for the Core i7 and Ryzen was at the level of 77 FPS, while for the FH it was 74 fps. And there is no single trend in terms of minimum indicators: Ryzen leads in the first scene, AMD FX in the second, and Core i7 in the third.
The low profile again shows that FX cannot support the maximum load on the graphics card. Ryzen and Core i7 do not have such problems. But in the geothermal valley scene, AMD FX was already the first to load all the necessary graphic objects, while competitors coped with a slight delay. In general, the difference turned out to be significant: 101 FPS for AMD FX, 139 FPS or 39% more for Ryzen and 145 FPS or 4% more for Core i7. Core i7 turned out to be the leader in terms of minimum indicators, and only in one scene did Ryzen come out on top. Although the difference is shockingly large in places.
Deus Ex Mankind Divided we decided to run the Deus Ex Mankind Divided only at a low preset, since at ultra the performance of all systems would be limited by the capabilities of the video card. Traditionally, AMD FX has not been able to load the GPU to the maximum, so it is slightly behind the two competitors. In numerical terms, he averaged 80 FPS. Ryzen delivered almost 91 FPS or 13% more. And the result of the Core i7 was 92. 5 FPS, or 2% better than Ryzen. But according to the minimum indicator, the leadership of the novelty from AMD is undeniable: 22 FPS for AMD FX, 28 for Core i7 and 70 for Ryzen.
HITMAN was also launched only at low graphics settings, but in DirectX 12 mode. There was plenty of video card power, so we can evaluate the capabilities of the processor. Traditionally, AMD FX takes third place with 106.5 FPS. Ryzen delivered 135 fps, up 27%. And the Core i7 sped ahead with 151 FPS, or 12% more than Ryzen.
And now a few gameplays without an objective frequency count. Mafia III with minimal settings at first showed itself best on a system with Ryzen on board. In roughly the same scene, it delivered 79 FPS with AMD FX, 82.5 FPS or 5% more with Core i7 and 96 FPS or 16% more with Ryzen 7. As we got closer to the central part of the city, the number of objects increased, and frequency indicators decreased. In some places, the Core i7 pulled ahead, but not significantly.
High profile graphics settings in WATCH_DOGS 2 generally follows the general trend: the least productive system is with AMD FX, which gives out about 45 FPS, with Ryzen you can count on 65 fps, which is 44% more, and with Core i7 we get about 69 FPS or 6% more. But the gameplay is difficult to synchronize, so the figures are very approximate.
After switching to a low profile graphic settings, the situation has not changed, only the indicators have increased. In one of the scenes, AMD FX delivered about 47 FPS, Ryzen provided 68 fps or 45% more, and the Core i7 managed to achieve 91 FPS or another 34% more.
Battlefield 1 at ultra settings produced roughly the same results on all three systems. Depending on the video effects and NPC actions, the frame rate was around 70-85 FPS. Subjectively, it’s even difficult to name a winner, because at one moment Ryzen is a couple of FPS behind the two competitors, and at the second, he is already slightly ahead of them.
In low graphics preset mode, the situation becomes familiar. In one scene, AMD FX hit around 120 FPS, Ryzen raised the bar to 175 FPS or 46%, and the Core i7 beat it with 182 fps, a 4% improvement. But, again, the situation changed dynamically, so in some places the difference decreased or increased, but this did not affect the general arrangement of places.
The test session ends with the game Sniper Elite 4 in DirectX 12 mode. At ultra settings, we usually run into the performance of the video card, so the performance differs slightly. In one of the scenes, the FX-8350 delivered 76 FPS, Ryzen got 80 FPS or 5% more, and the Core i7 got 83 FPS or 4% more. Although in the second half, AMD FX was already ahead of its competitors by several FPS in some places.
Switching to low settings did not change the balance of power, but widened the gap between the two leaders and the least productive model. AMD FX was routinely behind with 115 fps. Ryzen delivered 140 FPS or 22% more. Core i7 delivered 143 FPS or 2% more than Ryzen. And again, in the second half, AMD FX significantly improved and was able to almost equalize the results: 140 FPS for Core i7 and Ryzen and 135 fps for AMD FX.
Results
Based on the results of this rapid test, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, at ultra-high settings, performance is often limited by the capabilities of the GPU, so the gap between the three processors is reduced to a minimum. If you choose the minimum graphics settings to feel the potential of the CPU, then the Ryzen 7 1700X in some places is 20-40% or even more ahead of the FX-8350 and copes better with GPU loading. So this is really a step forward for AMD. In turn, the Core i7-6700K was faster than Ryzen in almost all tests.
But there are two things to keep in mind. First, games, especially in DirectX 11 mode, perceive higher frequencies better than a large number of computing threads. But the difference in nominal speed between the Intel Core i7-6700K and the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X reaches 600 MHz. Secondly, the Intel Core microarchitecture has been on the market for many years, and game developers have perfectly optimized their projects for its features. Ryzen immediately provided competitive, albeit slightly lower performance. That is, further optimizations of the BIOS of motherboards and possible changes in the OS, drivers or the game engines themselves should strengthen the position of the novelty from AMD. Therefore, we look forward to the appearance of more affordable 4- and 6-core representatives of AMD Ryzen.
Why is AMD FX-8350 better than Intel Core i7-4770?
- 2.35x higher CPU clock speed
8 x 4GHz vs 4 x 3.4GHz - 266MHz higher RAM speed
Why is Intel Core i7-4770 better than AMD FX-8350?
- Semiconductors 10nm smaller than
What are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i7-3770
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i5-9400f
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Xeon E3-1220 V3
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
9000 9000
AMD RYZEN Core i7-3770
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3
AMD Ryzen 5 1600x
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core I7-47703
Intel Core I7-0004 AMD 7 1800x
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i7-4770
Intel Core i5-7400
General Information
The heat dissipation requirement (TDP) is the maximum amount of energy that the cooling system will have to dissipate. A lower TDP also usually means less power consumption.
Intel Atom E3805
A smaller size indicates a newer chip manufacturing process.
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
32-bit operating system can support up to 4 GB of RAM. 64-bit allows more than 4 GB, which improves performance. It also allows you to run 64-bit applications.
Intel Core i7-4770
PCI Express (PCIe) is a high speed expansion card standard that is used to connect a computer to its peripherals. Newer versions support higher throughput and provide better performance.
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
A higher transistor count usually indicates a newer, more powerful processor.
With integrated graphics, you don’t need to buy a separate card.
Intel Core i7-4770
Performance
Intel Xeon Platinum 9282
More L2 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
Intel Xeon Phi 7290F
More L3 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
More threads result in better performance and better multitasking.
Intel Xeon Phi 7290F
When the processor is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
Intel Core i9-9900
More L1 scratchpad memory results in faster results in CPU and system performance tuning.
Intel Xeon Phi 7290F
Memory
Can support faster memory that speeds up system performance.
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
More memory channels increase the speed of data transfer between memory and processor.
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
Functions
Dynamic frequency scaling is a technology that allows the processor to conserve power and reduce noise when it is under light load.
Intel Core i7-4770
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
Intel Core i7-4770
It’s easier to get better quality using virtualization if it’s hardware supported.
Intel Core i7-4770
Many Intel processors use Hyperthreading technology, which means that each processor core can run on two threads at the same time, rather than most processors that run on one thread per core. This means you will get better quality in some applications.
Intel Core i7-4770
Advanced transistor technology developed by Intel for low power consumption and high speed.
Intel Core i7-4770
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing images or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
Comparative analysis of Intel Core i7-4790S and AMD FX-8350 processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphical interfaces, Picture quality in graphics, Graphics API support, Compatibility, Peripherals, Security and reliability, Technology, Virtualization. Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation ( Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames ), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike-Physics Score.
Benefits
Reasons to choose Intel Core i7-4790S
- Newer processor, release date difference 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
- Approximately 17% higher max core temperature: 71.35°C vs 61°C
- A newer manufacturing process for the processor allows it to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 22 nm vs 32 nm SOI
- Approximately 92% less power consumption: 65 Watt vs 125 Watt
- Performance in PassMark — Single thread mark about 48% better: 2242 vs 1510
- Performance in PassMark benchmark — CPU mark about 7% higher: 9557 vs 8957
- Approximately 60% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core benchmark: 4168 vs 2612
- Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core performance about 29% better: 13007 vs 10098
- 3.
9 times better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 86.186 vs 21.94
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) about 50% better: 0.639vs 0.427
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — V >
| Features | |
| Issue date | 1 May 2014 vs 23 October 2012 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71.35°C vs 61°C |
| Process | 22 nm vs 32 nm SOI |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 125 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2242 vs 1510 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 9557 vs 8957 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 4168 vs 2612 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 13007 vs 10098 |
| CompuBench 1. |
86.186 vs 21.94 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.639 vs 0.427 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 2.48 vs 1.199 |
Reasons to choose AMD FX-8350
- Unlocked processor, unlocked multiplier allows easy overclocking
- 4 more cores, the ability to run more applications simultaneously: 8 vs 4
- Approximately 5% higher clock speed: 4.2 GHz vs 4.00 GHz
- The L1 cache is approximately 50% larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- L2 cache is 8 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) about 92% better: 9.886 vs 5.16
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) about 17% better: 7.137 vs 6.
08
| Features | |
| Unlocked | Unlocked / Locked |
| Number of cores | 8 vs 4 |
| Maximum frequency | 4.2 GHz vs 4.00 GHz |
| Level 1 cache | 384 KB vs 256 KB |
| Level 2 cache | 8MB vs 1MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 9.886 vs 5.16 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.137 vs 6.08 |
Benchmark comparison AMD FX-8350
Cpu Benchmark with tests
| Intel Core i7-4790K | AMD FX-8350 | |
| 4.00GHz | Frequency | 4.00 GHz |
| 4.40GHz | Turbo (1 core) | 4. |
| 4.20GHz | Turbo (all cores) | 4.10 GHz |
| 4 | Cores | 8 |
| yes | Hyperthreading ? | No |
| yes | Overclocking? | yes |
| normal | Basic architecture | normal |
| Intel HD Graphics 4600 | GPU | no iGPU |
| 11.1 | DirectX Version | |
| 3 | Max. displays | |
| memory size | ||
| 2 | Memory channels | 2 |
| Max. memory size | ||
| No | ECC | yes |
| — | L2 Cache | — |
| 8.00MB | L3 Cache | 8.00 MB |
| 3.0 | PCIe version | |
| 16 | PCIe lanes | |
| 22nm | Technology | 32nm |
| LGA 1150 | Socket | AM3+ |
| 88 W | TDP | 125W |
| VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d | Virtualization | AMD-V |
| Q2/2014 | Issue date | Q4/2012 |
| show more details | show more details |
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor to Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor to Cinebench R20 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform test. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform benchmark. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
Theoretical processing performance of the processor’s internal graphics unit with simple precision (32 bits) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS specifies how many billions of floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies that can also be textured and animated in the program. The Blender test creates predefined scenes and measures the time(s) required for the entire scene. The less time it takes, the better. We chose the bmw27 as our reference scene.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other 3D. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The iGPU test uses the CPU’s internal graphics unit to execute OpenGL commands.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the processors listed below have passed CPU-Benchmark testing. However, most of the processors were not tested and the results were evaluated by the secret patented CPU-Benchmark formula. As such, they do not accurately reflect the actual values of Passmark CPU ratings and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Popular comparison
Intel Core i7-4790K vs. AMD FX-8350 — Specifications and test CPU Benchmark
4.1 of 41 rating(s)
fx-8350 | Tags | Overclockers.ru
Alexey Sychev
May 26, 2019 at 08:07
Records required lower frequencies, but with eight active cores.
Phoenix
January 13, 2018
This review will test several generations of AMD CPUs. We will conduct a summary test of twenty-one processors at a resolution of 1920 x 1080, seven games and a couple of operating modes, and find out how productive the new Ryzen line is compared to its predecessors in the FX and A series. And also find out what kind of increase you can count on when updating the system.
Phoenix
October 4, 2017
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X processor and nine other processors (including Core i7-7700K, i5-7600K, i3-7350K and AMD FX) tested in seven games at 19 resolution20 x 1080 and two modes of operation.
Phoenix
September 3, 2017
Testing twenty-eight processors in seven games, one resolution and two operating modes. From Intel Pentium G4560 to Core i7-7700K and from AMD Athlon X4 860K to AMD FX-9590 BE.
Phoenix
May 17, 2017
Test of twenty-eight processors in one resolution and in two modes of operation. from Intel Pentium G4560 to Core i7-7700K and from AMD Athlon X4 860K to AMD FX-9590 B.E.
Phoenix
April 30, 2017
Tests Intel Core i3-7350K, Core i3-7320, Core i3-7300, Core i3-7100 and seven more models (including i5-6400, i3-6320, i3-6300, i3-6100 and AMD FX ) in ten games, 1920×1080 resolution and two modes of operation.
I.N.
March 18, 2017
Despite the release of AMD Ryzen, it’s too early to write off the Socket AM3+ platform. And there are several reasons for this. This includes the cost of new products, the difficulties with their distribution, and the need to change memory. This means that there is still a need for new models. True, it is becoming increasingly difficult to release them: AMD 760.9 chipsets have70 and 990 do not support modern interfaces like USB 3.0, which has to be solved by installing additional controllers.
Phoenix
February 8, 2017
Nineteen processors tested in eight games, 1920 x 1080 resolution, and two operating modes.
Phoenix
December 18, 2016
Testing twenty-nine processors in one resolution and two modes of operation. Pentium G4400 to Intel Core i7-6700K and AMD A8-7650K to AMD FX-9590 B.E.
Phoenix
August 7, 2016
Testing twenty processors in eight games, 1920 x 1080 resolution and two operating modes
I. N.
July 21, 2016
Earlier, we have already considered the nuances of working and overclocking AMD Carrizo-Excavator, and also tested it in 2D applications and synthetics. Now it’s time to put an end to this epic — look at its performance in games. The opponents will be not only representatives of Godavari, Kaveri and Vishera, but also Intel.
I.N.
July 16, 2016
Some time ago we took a closer look at most of the nuances of the Athlon X4 845’s behavior, and also evaluated the frequency potential of several samples. Now let’s move on from theory to practice and compare the performance of processors of different generations — Excavator, Godavari, Kaveri and Vishera.
Phoenix
July 6, 2016
Summary testing of ten configurations of gaming PCs in 1920 x 1080 resolution and several operating modes.
I.N.
June 16, 2016
For our new experiments, we took the ASRock 970A-G/3.1 motherboard, which has a persistent feeling of déjà vu when you look at it — it is very similar to the ASRock Fatal1ty 970 Performance tested last year. There are differences, but there is no doubt about the origin of the novelty presented this year. Were the company’s engineers able to draw conclusions and correct their mistakes?
Phoenix
April 29, 2016
Summary testing of seventeen video cards and twenty-two processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
April 21, 2016
Summary testing of seventeen video cards and fifty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
April 20, 2016
Summary testing of seventeen video cards and fifty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
April 17, 2016
Testing the Radeon R9 Fury X graphics card and twenty-nine processors in ten games, a couple of operating modes and a resolution of 1920 x 1080.
Phoenix
April 11, 2016
Summary testing of seventeen video cards and fifty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
April 8, 2016
DOOM (2016) beta gameplay experience and developer plans for the near future, as well as pooled testing of seventeen graphics cards and fifty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two modes of operation.
Phoenix
April 3, 2016
Testing a GeForce GTX 980 Ti video card and twenty-nine processors in ten games, a couple of operating modes and a resolution of 1920 x 1080.
Phoenix
March 25, 2016
Summary testing of seventeen video cards and fifty-two processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
March 20, 2016
Testing of Intel Core i3-6320, Core i3-6300, Core i3-6100 and twelve other models in ten games, 1920 x 1080 resolution and two operating modes.
Phoenix
March 16, 2016
Summary testing of seventeen video cards and fifty-two processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
February 26, 2016
Summary testing of nineteen video cards and forty-nine processors in a couple of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
February 22, 2016
Summary testing of nineteen video cards and forty nine processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
February 21, 2016
Testing seventeen processors at 19 resolution20 x 1080 and two modes of operation. From AMD Athlon X4 860K to FX-9590 BE.
Phoenix
February 15, 2016
Summary testing of nineteen video cards and forty nine processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
February 12, 2016
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-nine processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
February 5, 2016
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-nine processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
January 29, 2016
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-nine processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
January 27, 2016
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-nine processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
January 24, 2016
Tests the Intel Core i7-6700, Core i5-6600, Core i5-6500 and Core i5-6400 processors and twelve other models in ten games, 1920 x 1080 resolution and two operating modes.
Phoenix
January 15, 2016
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-nine processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
I.N.
December 31, 2015
The reason for the review was the information that Intel Skylake processors can be overclocked by changing the base frequency, regardless of the locked multipliers. We will look at just such a CPU, which is the youngest member of the sixth generation Intel Core family, aimed at pairing with Intel 100-Series system logic sets and motherboards based on LGA 1151.
Phoenix
December 11, 2015
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
December 8, 2015
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
December 6, 2015
Testing the Intel Core i7-5775C and Core i5-5675C processors and fourteen other models in ten games, 1920 x 1080 resolution and two operating modes.
Phoenix
December 2, 2015
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
November 30, 2015
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
November 25, 2015
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
November 22, 2015
Testing Intel Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K processors and twelve other models in ten games, 19 resolution20 x 1080 and two modes of operation.
Phoenix
November 20, 2015
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
November 13, 2015
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
November 11, 2015
Summary testing of eighteen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
November 5, 2015
Summary testing of thirty-one video cards (including the latest innovations) and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
October 16, 2015
Summary testing of seventeen video cards and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.
Phoenix
October 9, 2015
Summary testing of thirty-one video cards (including the latest innovations) and forty-five processors in a pair of resolutions and two operating modes.