Processors/Comparison
15 specifications
Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD FX-8350
On paper, the AMD FX-8350 has more cores (8 against 6), the Intel Core i5-11600K boosts higher, and the Intel Core i5-11600K carries more L3 cache. Specifications describe what each chip is designed to do; how much of that either one holds under continuous load is a separate question.
Intel Core i5-11600K
Intel · Core 11th generation · Desktop
AMD FX-8350
AMD · FX (Vishera) · Desktop
Cores and clocks
Cache and power
Platform
A check marks the higher figure only on rows where higher is unambiguously better. Rows without one are not ties; they are specifications where “better” has no meaning.
Reading the table
What the difference means.
Cores and threads
This pair splits: the FX-8350 has more cores (8 against 6) while the Core i5-11600K runs more threads (12 against 8). That happens when one design runs two threads on every core and the other does not, or mixes large and small cores. A second thread on a core adds roughly a quarter to a third of a core's work, not a whole one, so 8 full cores and 12 threads on 6 cores land closer together than either number suggests. Work that spreads across everything, such as rendering, compiling and video export, is where the difference shows; which side wins it depends on how fast each core is, which a specification sheet does not say.
Boost clock
The Core i5-11600K boosts to 4.9 GHz against 4.2 GHz, 17 percent higher. Across generations it is not a guide to speed on its own, for the reason above. Boost is also a peak: it is held for seconds to minutes, on one or two cores, while the cooling and the power limit allow. What either chip settles at under a long load is lower, and it depends on the cooler and the motherboard as much as the chip.
Cache
The Core i5-11600K carries 12 MB of L3 cache against 8 MB. Cache is fast memory on the chip, and a larger one means the cores wait on main memory less often. Games, large spreadsheets and compiling respond to it; rendering and video export, which stream through data in order, respond much less.
Power and cooling
Both are rated at 125 W, so they ask the same of a cooler and a power supply. The rating is the heat to be moved for the chip to hold its speed; both draw above it in short bursts, and either one slows down rather than fails when the cooling falls short.
Platform
They use different sockets, FCLGA1200 and AM3+, so moving from one to the other means a new motherboard. For an upgrade, that cost belongs in the comparison; for a new build, the newer platform is the one with later chips still to come.
Manufacturing process
The Core i5-11600K is built on a 14 nm process against 32 nm. A finer process generally does the same work for less power. The names are marketing labels rather than measurements, though, and they are not comparable between manufacturers, so treat the row as a sign of how recent the design is and no more.
Which to pick, on paper
- Rendering, compiling, video export
- Core i5-11600K
- 12 threads against 8. Work that uses every thread scales with how many there are.
What no table says
How much of its speed a processor keeps after the first minute depends on the cooling and the power limit of the machine it is in. If you own one of these, measure it: the test is free and runs in this browser.
Questions
- Is the Core i5-11600K better than the FX-8350?
- By need, on the specifications: rendering, compiling, video export: the Core i5-11600K. No specification says how much speed either one keeps under a long load; that depends on the cooling and the power limit of the machine it is in, and it is what a sustained test measures.
- Do the Core i5-11600K and the FX-8350 use the same socket?
- No. The Core i5-11600K uses FCLGA1200 and the FX-8350 uses AM3+, so switching means a new motherboard.
More comparisons
- Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600
- Intel Core i5-11600K vs Intel Core i5-10600
- Intel Core i5-11600K vs Intel Core i5-12500
- Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
- Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600
- AMD FX-8350 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
- AMD FX-8350 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600
- AMD FX-8350 vs AMD Ryzen 5 8500G
- AMD FX-8350 vs AMD Ryzen 5 8600G
- AMD FX-8350 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Every figure on this table is a design target. None of it is a measurement.
Nothing above describes how a processor behaves twenty minutes into a sustained workload, which is where two chips with nearly identical specifications routinely diverge. A boost clock is a ceiling the vendor permits, not a rate the chip sustains, and whether it holds depends on the cooling, the case, the power profile and the room. None of those appear on a specification sheet.
We deliberately do not reduce these figures to a single score. A composite invented from specifications would look authoritative and measure nothing, and choosing the weights would be choosing the winner.