[TechSpot] Core i3-7350K vs. Core i5-7400 - moar cores or moar speed?

[escrow4]

"Despite being a lot of fun, going for an overclocked Core i3-7350K doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For the most part, the stock-clocked i5-7400 is just as fast or faster, consumes significantly less power, runs much cooler and ultimately ends up costing less."

"The way I see it, consumers looking to buy a seventh-generation Intel processor should choose between the Pentium G4560 at $64 or the Core i5-7400 at $200. As crazy as it sounds, everything in-between is pointless."

http://www.techspot.com/review/1332-mainstream-intel-core-i3-vs-core-i5/

This is AMDs last chance to provide actual formidable competition . . . . although I'd say you should at least buy the least spastic i5, the 7500.

 

[TheELF]

Completely pointless article,nobody is going to buy the i3 k for mainstream purposes,people are going to buy it for emulation/simulation rigs and that's the only thing they should have tested.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah, the i3-7350K is DOA due to pricing. We should have had an unlocked Skylake i3, and it shouldn't have been over $120 USD, preferably around $100 USD, IMHO.

Edit: And if you're gaming with a dGPU, therefore, the updated Kaby Lake iGPU is of no added value to you, then if you're on a budget, then you should really get a Skylake i5, and BLCK OC it. That provides, IMHO, the greatest value in CPUs for gaming. That is, if you haven't already decided to splash out for an i7, due to HT, and some games (Watch_Dogs2, AOTS, BF1, etc.) ability to utilize more than four hardware threads.

Kaby Lake brings essentially nothing to the table for higher-end budget gamer overclockers.

At the low-end, though, Intel throwing enthusiasts a bone with the G4560 at 3.5Ghz with HyperThreading, is great for 1080P @ 60 gaming, when paired with a suitable card (GTX 1050ti, GTX1060, or RX 470 4GB).

 

[cbn]

Yeah, the i3-7350K is DOA due to pricing. We should have had an unlocked Skylake i3, and it shouldn't have been over $120 USD, preferably around $100 USD, IMHO.

Yes, After the G3258 an unlocked Sylake Core i3 would have made sense. Then that followed up with an unlocked Kabylake Pentium.

Speaking of unlocked budget 2C/4T I suspect we might eventually get this via 20th Anniversary Celeron.....but by that time the goal posts will have moved further away yet again.

 

[crashtech]

Notice that the i3 wins or virtually ties in all the game tests. Just sayin'...

 

[cbn]

"The way I see it, consumers looking to buy a seventh-generation Intel processor should choose between the Pentium G4560 at $64 or the Core i5-7400 at $200. As crazy as it sounds, everything in-between is pointless."

Yep, I would definitely agree with that statement.

And to make things worse Intel appears to heavily discount the Core i5 x400 series......making it effectively in reality a "Core i3 priced processor" to the masses.

 

[cbn]

Notice that the i3 wins or virtually ties in all the game tests. Just sayin'...

When Core i3-7350 is overclocked to 4.8 Ghz it beats stock speed Core i5 7400 in 2 out of 4 games. Ties in 1 game. And loses in 1 game.

At stock speed the Core i3 7350K loses to the Core i5 7400 in every game.

 

[crashtech]

When Core i3-7350 is overclocked to 4.8 Ghz it beats stock speed Core i5 7400 in 2 out of 4 games. Ties in 1 game. And loses in 1 game.

At stock speed the Core i3 7350K loses to the Core i5 7400 in every game.

If anyone buys a 7350K to run it at stock, they deserve what they get.

And just for those readers who don't want to look at the graph, the "loss" was by ONE FPS, even in minimums. That's within the margin of error. It's a tie.

 

[JDG1980]

Notice that the i3 wins or virtually ties in all the game tests. Just sayin'...

Yet the stock 2600K, despite its age and modest clock speed, beats the 7350K @ 4.8 GHz in minimum FPS in all of the game tests. (And sustaining a good minimum FPS is much more important than whether it does 109 or 110 FPS average, when >95% of gamers are locked at 60 Hz anyway). This proves that the emphasis on single-thread performance above all else is somewhat overblown. There are a few oddball games (apparently Starcraft 2 is one) that really needs single-thread power. And the same is true of the more advanced emulators, since many emulation tasks can't be easily made parallel. But aside from these relatively unusual use cases, the real question is whether single-thread performance is "good enough". On the Intel side, pretty much everything from Sandy Bridge onward meets that requirement. With AMD, the construction cores definitely fell short, but it looks like Zen will clear the bar with room to spare.

 

[crashtech]

I think it depends on who you are whether you believe the emphasis on ST is overblown. ST and MT are both important.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

If anyone buys a 7350K to run it at stock, they deserve what they get.

And just for those readers who don't want to look at the graph, the "loss" was by ONE FPS, even in minimums. That's within the margin of error. It's a tie.

If anyone buys an i3 in2017, then they are misguided. That one in particular is priced horribly..

 

[crashtech]

If anyone buys an i3 in2017, then they are misguided. That one in particular is priced horribly..

It is too expensive, I agree 100%.

 

[cbn]

And just for those readers who don't want to look at the graph, the "loss" was by ONE FPS, even in minimums. That's within the margin of error. It's a tie.

Okay we can say that 4.8 Ghz beat stock speed Core i5 7400 in two games and tied in the other two games.

But look how small the margin of victory was in the two games where 4.8 Ghz Core i3 7350K won:

That is not much at all.

P.S. Surprising to see the stock speed Haswell Core i5 beat both the 4.8Ghz Core i3 7350K and stock speed Core i5 7400 in both these games.

 

[crashtech]

Okay we can say that 4.8 Ghz beat stock speed Core i5 7400 in two games and tied in the other two games.

But look how small the margin of victory was in the two games where 4.8 Ghz Core i3 7350K won:

That is not much at all.

It's demonstrative of the lasting power of fast cores over more cores, and of the effectiveness of HT. Everyone should go ahead and buy the quad, but I happen to think this i3 is pretty impressive for what it is. It would be sweet to get one that would go over 5GHz.

 

[MajinCry]

Notice that the i3 wins or virtually ties in all the game tests. Just sayin'...

Don't i3's have terrible frametimes though?

 

[cbn]

Something to think about....

If stock speed Haswell Core i5 is overall superior to both 4.8 Ghz Core i3 7350K and stock speed Core i5 7400 (which if history repeats itself will be found in value priced budget pre-builts) where would that potentially leave Ryzen 3?

Ryzen 3 a true alternative for System builders? Or will it disappoint?

 

[crashtech]

Don't i3's have terrible frametimes though?

It's not shown here whether this new offering exhibits those characteristics, but it's fair to say there would be more stuttering with fewer cores, generally speaking.

 

[deasd]

No matter how i3 clocking high, I decide to give up dual core if the price of quad is acceptable. Many application support multithreads now and I could only see a dark future of those below quad.
Now I'll wait and see unlock quad i5s and Zen(apus), cheaper the better.

 

[crashtech]

This i3 is a niche product which is nonetheless priced too high. Many apps still benefit from high ST performance, and this particular CPU, overpriced as it is, presents itself as the single-threaded performance per dollar king as of right now. That makes it attractive as an all-round CPU, and I'd wager that those who buy it won't miss those extra cores 99% of the time.

 

[crashtech]

oops

 

[Arachnotronic]

This i3 is a niche product which is nonetheless priced too high. Many apps still benefit from high ST performance, and this particular CPU, overpriced as it is, presents itself as the single-threaded performance per dollar king as of right now. That makes it attractive as an all-round CPU, and I'd wager that those who buy it won't miss those extra cores 99% of the time.

Dual cores are likely to be dead in the i3 desktop line come early 2018 with Coffee Lake.

 

[VirtualLarry]

It's not shown here whether this new offering exhibits those characteristics, but it's fair to say there would be more stuttering with fewer cores, generally speaking.

If so, then how long, until an i7-7700K is said to have "bad frametimes and stuttering", due to lack of core count, as compared to Ryzen 8C/16T? Could potentially turn the tables quite a bit, if "only" four real cores becomes a liability.

Edit: Yeah... "Coffee Lake" timeframe?

 

[crashtech]

If so, then how long, until an i7-7700K is said to have "bad frametimes and stuttering", due to lack of core count, as compared to Ryzen 8C/16T? Could potentially turn the tables quite a bit, if "only" four real cores becomes a liability.

Edit: Yeah... "Coffee Lake" timeframe?

How long? A long time, imo, with history as a guide.

 

[cbn]

How long? A long time, imo, with history as a guide.

Remember ARM is an up and coming competitor (and the game engine designers know this). So history may not be the best guide here.

However, with that mentioned, I think a CPU like the Core i7 6700K will be good for a quite a while....probably a long time.

Its the lower core count like the Core i3-7350K that is (already) in danger the most.

 

[lolfail9001]

Eh, Intel needed to introduce i3-K if they ever wanted to move up the core count. Kaby just hit that awkward transition timing between lack of arch changes.