Intel Core i3-8350K vs AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Benchmarks, Specs, Performance Comparison and Differences
|
|
|
|
|
Intel Core i3-8350K vs AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Intel Core i3-8350K on one side and the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, It has 4 cores, 4 threads, a maximum frequency of 4,0GHz. The second is used on the desktop segment, it has a total of 6 cores, 12 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 3,6 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specification comparison:
| Processor | Intel Core i3-8350K | AMD Ryzen 5 1600 | ||||||
| Market (main) | Desktop | Desktop | ||||||
| ISA | x86-64 (64 bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) | ||||||
| Microarchitecture | Coffee Lake | Zen | ||||||
| Core name | Coffee Lake-S | Summit Ridge | ||||||
| Family | Core i3-8000 | Ryzen 5 1000 | ||||||
| Part number(s), S-Spec |
BX80684I38350K, |
YD1600BBAEBOX, |
||||||
| Release date | Q4 2017 | Q1 2017 | ||||||
| Lithography | 14 nm++ | 14 nm | ||||||
| Transistors | — | 4. 800.000.000 |
||||||
| Cores | 4 | 6 | ||||||
| Threads | 4 | 12 | ||||||
| Base frequency | 4,0 GHz | 3,2 GHz | ||||||
| Turbo frequency | — | 3,6 GHz | ||||||
| Cache memory | 8 MB | 16 MB | ||||||
| Max memory capacity | 64 GB | 64 GB | ||||||
| Memory types |
DDR4-2400 |
DDR4-2667 |
||||||
| Max # of memory channels | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| Max memory bandwidth | 37,5 GB/s | 39,74 GB/s | ||||||
| Max PCIe lanes | 16 | 20 | ||||||
| TDP | 91 W | 65 W | ||||||
| Suggested PSU | 600W ATX Power Supply | 600W ATX Power Supply | ||||||
| GPU integrated graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 (Coffee Lake) | None | ||||||
| GPU execution units | 23 | — | ||||||
| GPU shading units | 184 | — | ||||||
| GPU base clock | 350 MHz | — | ||||||
| GPU boost clock | 1150 MHz | — | ||||||
| GPU FP32 floating point | 423,2 GFLOPS | — | ||||||
| Socket | LGA1151 | AM4, PGA-1331 | ||||||
| Compatible motherboard | Socket LGA 1151 Motherboard | Socket AM4 Motherboard | ||||||
| Maximum temperature | 100°C | 95°C | ||||||
| CPU-Z single thread | 606 | 403 | ||||||
| CPU-Z multi thread | 2. 364 |
3.157 | ||||||
| Cinebench R15 single thread | 175 | 145 | ||||||
| Cinebench R15 multi-thread | 669 | 1.147 | ||||||
| Cinebench R20 single thread | 499 | 350 | ||||||
| Cinebench R20 multi-thread | 2.009 | 2.580 | ||||||
| Cinebench R23 single thread | 1.129 | 824 | ||||||
| Cinebench R23 multi-thread | 5.612 | 6.476 | ||||||
| PassMark single thread | 2.488 | 2.068 | ||||||
| PassMark CPU Mark | 6. 827 |
12.335 | ||||||
| (Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 single core |
5.571 | 4.114 | ||||||
| (Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 multi-core |
16.480 | 19.013 | ||||||
| (SGEMM) GFLOPS performance |
345,4 GFLOPS | 247,7 GFLOPS | ||||||
| (Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio |
181 pts / W | 293 pts / W | ||||||
| Amazon | ||||||||
| eBay |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.
Suggested PSU: We assume that we have An ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
The processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600 has a larger number of cores, the maximum frequency of Intel Core i3-8350K is greater, that the thermal dissipation power of AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is less. Both were produced in the same year.
Performance comparison with the benchmarks:
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.
| CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600 |
403 3.157 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K |
606 2.364 |
In single core, the difference is 50%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 34%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.
| Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600 |
145 1.  147 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K |
175 669 |
In single core, the difference is 21%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 71%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.
| Cinebench R20 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600 |
350 2.  580 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K |
499 2.009 |
In single core, the difference is 43%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 28%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.
| Cinebench R23 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600 |
824 6.  476 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K |
1.129 5.612 |
In single core, the difference is 37%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 15%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R23 is cross-platform testing software that allows you to assess the hardware capabilities of a device such as a computer, tablet, server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant. The test scene contains no less than 2,000 objects and more than 300,000 polygons in total.
| PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread | |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600 |
2.  06812.335 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K |
2.488 6.827 |
In single core, the difference is 20%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 81%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
On Windows 64-bit:
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows 64-bit | |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600 |
4.114 19.  013 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K |
5.571 16.480 |
In single core, the difference is 35%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 15%.
On Linux 64-bit:
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux 64-bit | |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600 |
4.354 19.596 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K |
5.371 15.370 |
In single core, the difference is 23%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 27%.
On Mac OS X 64-bit:
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Mac OS X 64-bit | |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 5 1600 |
4.216 19.258 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K |
5.  73917.589 |
In single core, the difference is 36%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 9%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
Equivalence:
Intel Core i3-8350K AMD equivalentAMD Ryzen 5 1600 Intel equivalent
See also:
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AFAMD Ryzen 5 1600X
i3 8350K vs R5 1600: price to performance showdown
Early last year, AMD introduced its brand new “Zen” micro-architecture for desktops, with the Ryzen brand.
Offering much higher performance than the previous ‘Construction’ cores ending with Excavator, Ryzen was a great success. AMD had pulled off something great with Ryzen, they beat their initial target of 40% performance per clock – reaching 52% higher IPC than Excavator. And while the Ryzen processors can’t quite match their Intel counterparts in pure IPC or single-threaded performance, they absolutely dominated their equivalently priced blue-team parts in multi-thread, all while still offering very serviceable single-thread. After all, it was the quad-core i7 7700K going up against the octa-core Ryzen 7 1700 in terms of price.
Towards the end of 2017, Intel responded with the ‘Coffee-Lake’ series of CPUs. Lead by the flagship mainstream i7 8700K processor – now featuring six cores instead of four. Across the board, Intel has now offered more cores than previous ‘7th generation’ parts. Even the lowly i3s are now native quad core parts (admittedly without Hyper Threading, so they still only have four threads).
Combined with improvements to Intel’s 14nm process (now called 14nm++), Coffee Lake can reach the same high frequencies as Kaby Lake, but with two additional cores to boot.
This year, AMD has announced price-cuts to the majority of their 1st generation Ryzen CPUs, most likely in preparation for the incoming 2nd generation known as ‘Pinnacle Ridge’. These price cuts add even more value proposition to the already well priced Ryzen parts, so how exactly does Ryzen now fare against a similarly priced Intel CPU from the Coffee-Lake generation?
Now, a lot of people will ask “why not test the i5 8400, since they are both hexa cores?”, and while this is a valid question, I feel the $169 i3 8350K is somewhat of an underrated product. It’s essentially a cheaper i5-7600K with an additional 2MB of L3 cache. Offering a native quad-core die with four threads and complete overclocking support, it seems like a processor geared towards gamers. It’s also cheaper. Quite a bit cheaper at the time of writing.
Combined with the already higher platform cost of Z370, I believe this is still a valid comparison.
In addition, some might notice that the i3 8350K is in fact cheaper than the Ryzen 5 1600 for the processor alone, and that’s true. But…
The answer to that is the fact that overall platform cost for Ryzen is lower than Z370, and the money saved from the lower cost B350 Motherboard allows me to get a more expensive Processor, whilst still costing less than the i3 8350K and its cooler (which it doesn’t come with).
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s take a look at the actual silicon powering these Processors.
- 4 cores
- 4 threads
- 256kb L2 cache per core
- 8MB L3 cache
- Dual-channel memory interface
- 4 GHz base clock
The i3 8350K is a native quad-core die based on the ‘Kaby Lake-R’ silicon. The CPU cores feature the same underlying micro-architecture as the 2015 Skylake architecture.
The chip has 256kb of L2 cache per core and an 8MB inclusive Last Level L3 cache. In addition, the CPU cores communicate via Intel’s “ringbus” topology, rather than the new “mesh” architecture introduced with Skylake-X CPUs. Unlike the current Ryzen processors, the 8350K includes an onboard GPU on the silicon, seen here occupying over a third of the die space.
A die shot of Kaby Lake-R, the chip used for the 8th generation i3 series.
- 6 cores
- 12 threads
- 512kb L2 cache per core
- 16MB L3 cache
- Dual-channel memory interface
- 3.2 GHz base clock
- 3.6 GHz boost clock
AMD’s Ryzen 5 1600 is based on the same die as the entire Ryzen lineup, and even the Epyc Server processors. This die is called a “Zeppelin”. It is a eight-core die, with cores split into two clusters called Core Complexes. One of these cores per CCX are disabled on the Ryzen 5 1600, creating a hexa-core part in a 3+3 configuration. Each core features a 512KB L2 cache.