Key Differences
In short — Core i5-4670 outperforms the cheaper FX-8150 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-8150 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-4670 is 599 days newer than the cheaper FX-8150.
Advantages of AMD FX-8150
- Up to 42% cheaper than Core i5-4670 - CA$87.12 vs CA$151.21
- Up to 41% better value when playing Dead Space than Core i5-4670 - CA$0.6 vs CA$1.01 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-4670 - 8 vs 4 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i5-4670
- Performs up to 3% better in Dead Space than FX-8150 - 149 vs 144 FPS
- Consumes up to 33% less energy than AMD FX-8150 - 84 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8150 doesn't have integrated graphics
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
FPS
144
96%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.6/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$87.12
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$87.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 67 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 2nd, 2013
FPS
149
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.01/FPS
59%
Price, CA$
CA$151.21
57%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$151.21 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 68 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Desktop • Jun 2nd, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-8150 | vs | Intel Core i5-4670 |
---|---|---|
Oct 12th, 2011 | Release Date | Jun 2nd, 2013 |
FX | Collection | Core i5 |
Zambezi | Codename | Haswell |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 1150 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 4 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 84 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
18.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |