Key Differences
In short — Core i3-4160T outperforms FX-8350 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i3-4160T is 636 days newer than FX-8350.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-4160T
- Performs up to 6% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than FX-8350 - 178 vs 168 FPS
- Consumes up to 72% less energy than AMD FX-8350 - 35 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-8350 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-8350
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-4160T - 8 vs 4 threads
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Core i3-4160T
Desktop • Jul 21st, 2014
FX-8350
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-4160T | vs | AMD FX-8350 |
|---|---|---|
Jul 21st, 2014 | Release Date | Oct 23rd, 2012 |
| Core i3 | Collection | FX |
| Haswell | Codename | Vishera |
| Intel Socket 1150 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 8 |
| 4 | Threads | 8 |
| 3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
31.0x | Multiplier | 20.0x |
Intel HD 4400 | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
