Core i3 7350k review

[unseenmorbidity]

 

[SPBHM]

yes well, to expensive, if you could OC with h110 and the CPU was a 7100K it would be great.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hmm. Cliffs: He said "Avoid it", essentially.

Power consumption was high when overclocked, and performance was still lower than i5, for many tasks. (The exception being primarily single-threaded tasks.)

G3258 all over again, except, this time it's not cheap, and as he points out, since it's a "K" CPU, Intel no longer bundles a cooler with it. (The G3258 came with a decent copper-cored stock cooler.)

More stupid "segmentation" at work, to attempt to extract maximum dollars from "enthusiasts".

Thankfully, I took RussianSensation's advice, and bought an i5-6400 and OCed it, which should give much better performance.

 

[Sweepr]

It all depends on perspective.

Pros
- For same or a little more than what a Core i3-6320 currently costs you're getting higher clocks and Intel sanctioned overclock - none of the BCLK overclock downsides
- It will be a much more capable chip than Pentium Anniversary Edition, HT supports can make a huge difference to Intel's dual-cores

Cons
- It will be competing against Intel's own used SB/IB/Haswell/Skylake 4C/4T CPUs + Core i5-7400/i5-7500 from the same CPU family (ST advantage vs MT advantage)
- You will need a Z170/Z270 motherboard if you want to overclock, and although they are relatively cheap today - H110/B150 MBs are still cheaper

Also the tests were already posted here.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yes, this is the same guy that gave the half a**** review of locking two identical cores at the same clockspeed and being captain obvious that there is no IPC increase, when the point of KL is increased clockspeed and better ability to maintain turbo, especially in mobile. Seems like he has an agenda against intel, or at least is bashing them either from stupidity or intentionally to get clicks.

That said, Larry, I agree with you. An overclocked i3 holds no interest for me. What intel needs is more cores/threads on the mainstream, not a few hundred mhz more clockspeed. I would take a 3.5ghz i5 over a 4.5 ghz i3 any day of the week.

 

[Arachnotronic]

More stupid "segmentation" at work, to attempt to extract maximum dollars from "enthusiasts".

Virtually all chip companies segment their product lines.

 

[bbhaag]

Really whats the point of a chip like this? To satisfy the enthusiast crowd? Certainly the OEMs have no interest in it so it must be for guys like us right except its power hungry and expensive. That's like the two main things guys like us hate. I just don't get it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Virtually all chip companies segment their product lines.

Really whats the point of a chip like this? To satisfy the enthusiast crowd?

Not all chip companies charge as much as a quad-core, for a glorified unlocked dual-core.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes, this is the same guy that gave the half a**** review of locking two identical cores at the same clockspeed and being captain obvious that there is no IPC increase,

Still, it's good to empirically test that. Even the 65nm->45nm Core2 shrink, brough IPC increases and new opcodes, however slight.

 

[escrow4]

Hmm. Cliffs: He said "Avoid it", essentially.

Power consumption was high when overclocked, and performance was still lower than i5, for many tasks. (The exception being primarily single-threaded tasks.)

G3258 all over again, except, this time it's not cheap, and as he points out, since it's a "K" CPU, Intel no longer bundles a cooler with it. (The G3258 came with a decent copper-cored stock cooler.)

More stupid "segmentation" at work, to attempt to extract maximum dollars from "enthusiasts".

Thankfully, I took RussianSensation's advice, and bought an i5-6400 and OCed it, which should give much better performance.

You actually bought the spastic Skylake? The lowest clocked and most retarded of the bunch? Should have at least gone to the 6500 not as castrated model . . .

This i3 is pfft. Its still nothing more than an upjumped dual core pretending its a quad. Meh.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Not all chip companies charge as much as a quad-core, for a glorified unlocked dual-core.

How many chip companies offer comparable products?

 

[bbhaag]

Not all chip companies charge as much as a quad-core, for a glorified unlocked dual-core.

I'm having trouble understanding your post. What other chip companies are you referring too? AMD? Your post was very vague.

 

[LTC8K6]

He should have tested and talked about the IGP's capabilities, at least.

 

[VirtualLarry]

You actually bought the spastic Skylake? The lowest clocked and most retarded of the bunch? Should have at least gone to the 6500 not as castrated model . . .

"Retarded" ... LOL. It's a freaking Skylake quad-core. And with BCLK OC ability, the stock speed doesn't matter, except possibly for binning. Most Skylake CPUs OC to around 4.4-4.6Ghz anyways, regardless.

 

[AtenRa]

This thing is DOA even for enthusiasts/overclockers etc, better spend $30 more and get a real Quad Core and then OC if you want.
You can get a new Core i5 7400/7500 and OC to 4GHz+ on all cores with the default Heat-Sink for the same price of the Core i3 7350K + Heat-Sink. At 4GHz the Quad Core will be way better than the Core i3 7350 at 4.8GHz except in ST loads, but in the vast majority of latest games the Quad Core i5 at 4GHz will be way faster and with less stutter than the OCed 7350K.

$170 for a dual core in 2017 is really the worst Intel CPU of the last 6-7 years. Many people will fall for the OC meme and then be forced to upgrade sooner than they want.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I'm having trouble understanding your post. What other chip companies are you referring too? AMD? Your post was very vague.

I think he may have been referring to Cyrix.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Many people will fall for the OC meme and then be forced to upgrade sooner than they want.

...Just like with the G3258. Intel's scheme, rinse, repeat.

Edit: Only, with the G3258, you could OC with cheap H81 boards, which was a lot cheaper option, than needing a Z170/270 board. OTOH, if you later decided to upgrade to a real overclockable quad-core, you'll have a better board with the Z170/270 option, rather than being left with an H81.

If only, there was some way to overclock the i3-7350K, on an H110 board, and it came with a copper-cored cooler. Then I could legitimately see this being a thing.

 

[Erenhardt]

This CPU would be a hit a couple of years ago.
Now, that games actually utilize and sometimes even need more cores its kind of meh.

 

[Arachnotronic]

This thing is DOA even for enthusiasts/overclockers etc, better spend $30 more and get a real Quad Core and then OC if you want.
You can get a new Core i5 7400/7500 and OC to 4GHz+ on all cores with the default Heat-Sink for the same price of the Core i3 7350K + Heat-Sink. At 4GHz the Quad Core will be way better than the Core i3 7350 at 4.8GHz except in ST loads, but in the vast majority of latest games the Quad Core i5 at 4GHz will be way faster and with less stutter than the OCed 7350K.

$170 for a dual core in 2017 is really the worst Intel CPU of the last 6-7 years. Many people will fall for the OC meme and then be forced to upgrade sooner than they want.

I think people should just save the extra and get a 7700K. It will last much longer, have better resale value, and just generally be a better experience along the way. Basically a much lower TCO.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This CPU would be a hit a couple of years ago.
Now, that games actually utilize and sometimes even need more cores its kind of meh.

Yeah, it's kind of like the "last hurrah" of dual-cores. Which should be history, starting with Coffee Lake.

Meanwhile, Intel is still not offering all that much value to their customers.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Meanwhile, Intel is still not offering all that much value to their customers.

Then why do you keep buying their CPUs? Money talks, and it seems like you keep throwing cash at Intel.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Then why do you keep buying their CPUs? Money talks, and it seems like you keep throwing cash at Intel.

I meant, more along the lines of that particular SKU. $170 for an unlocked dual-core (with HT)? When you can buy an i5-6400 for $180, and BLCK OC? You do the math, I did.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I meant, more along the lines of that particular SKU. $170 for an unlocked dual-core (with HT)? When you can buy an i5-6400 for $180, and BLCK OC? You do the math, I did.

BCLK OC on non-K chips in non-Z170 boards isn't guaranteed to work universally and is basically a hack. I think the proper compare against the 7350K will be the 7600K. Personally I'd go with the 7600K because the extra cores would be worth it to me, but comparing a $180 low-clocked, locked i5 to a high-clocked dual core/four thread i3 with an unlocked multi is really not a fair comparison, IMO.

 

[bbhaag]

I think he may have been referring to Cyrix.

Haha nice. he was really vague though. I mean cmon man

 

[unseenmorbidity]

It all depends on perspective.

Pros
- For same or a little more than what a Core i3-6320 currently costs you're getting higher clocks and Intel sanctioned overclock - none of the BCLK overclock downsides
- It will be a much more capable chip than Pentium Anniversary Edition, HT supports can make a huge difference to Intel's dual-cores

Cons
- It will be competing against Intel's own used SB/IB/Haswell/Skylake 4C/4T CPUs + Core i5-7400/i5-7500 from the same CPU family (ST advantage vs MT advantage)
- You will need a Z170/Z270 motherboard if you want to overclock, and although they are relatively cheap today - H110/B150 MBs are still cheaper

Also the tests were already posted here.

I don't see any real pros...

You are also forgetting the additional $30 for an aftermarket cooler for the i3 system. All and all, the i3 system would be considerably more expensive than a superior i5 system.

Heck, you could probably even buy an i5 kaby lake for less!

This CPU is extremely overpriced, and I cannot see any informed individual looking at this as anything other than a ripoff.