In the lab: Intel’s Core i3-7350K CPU

Hey, folks. You may have noticed a certain lack of post-CES floor reports on the site over the last couple days. I have several CES-related articles I need to finish up, but I came down with the flu on the way back from the show and I've been completely out of commission since. The UPS man awoke me from my feverish slumber this morning and left a nice surprise, though: Intel's Core i3-7350K.

Core i3-7350K on the left

If you're not already up to speed with it, the Core i3-7350K is Intel's unlocked "budget overclocking" chip for the Kaby Lake family. Those scare quotes are there because the i3-7350K commands a $168-$179 suggested price from Intel. A true Pentium G3258 successor this ain't. Still, that money buys two cores and four threads with a 4.2 GHz base clock—identical to the Core i7-7700K's—and a potentially more overclocking-friendly 60W TDP.

Because of its pricing, we're having a little bit of an internal debate about what chips to test the i3-7350K against in our review. If you have ideas about what our test suite should look like, let us know in the comments.

Comments closed
    • maxxcool
    • 3 years ago

    Jeff.. delid that sucker and liquid metal it. I’d love to see a 5ghz bench of it.

    • evilpaul
    • 3 years ago

    Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell i5’s overclocked would be a nice comparison. Plenty of readers are still using them. Would the Core i3 7350K be worthwhile for them?

    • sleepygeepy
    • 3 years ago

    Hello Jeff,

    I would love to see a comparison between a Core i3-7350K paired with a cheap Z270 or Z170 motherboard versus a Core i5-7400 paired with a cheap B250 or B150 motherboard.

    The Core i3-7350K is available in my area and costs the same as a Core i5-7400. The price difference is only 7 US dollars so many are on the fence whether to buy it or not. I just want to know if they perform similarly at stock clocks, or how high do we need to overclock the Core i3-7350K in order to gain performance parity with a non-K Core i5 Kabylake.

    Hope you feel better soon and looking forward to your review 🙂

    • derFunkenstein
    • 3 years ago

    The subject of the post that went up immediately after this might be a good idea, too. It’d be nice to see if [url=https://techreport.com/news/31267/kaby-lake-pentiums-gain-hyper-threading-and-lose-ecc-support<]those HT-enabled Pentiums[/url<] are "good enough" for most of TR's workload, considering the price.

    • ozzuneoj
    • 3 years ago

    If it hasn’t been said already, please try BClk over clocking with this, as that could give us an idea of what might be possible with the Pentiums that cost $100 less.

      • ozzuneoj
      • 3 years ago

      Anyone else want to see BCLK OC results? I know a K series will have different capabilities than a non-K, but it could still be helpful.

      TR really should do this if its possible, because people are going to want to know. Especially with $75 Kaby Lake Pentiums coming out that can perform like this:

      [url<]http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=2617&cmp%5B%5D=2921&cmp%5B%5D=2578[/url<] If BCLK overclocking works with Kaby Lake, we could see a new Athlon XP 1700+ TBred B... a ~$50 CPU that could overclock from 1.47Ghz to 2.0-2.2Ghz with a tiny air cooler, making it faster than the best CPUs of the time. Well... maybe this isn't quite that good, but its the closest we've gotten in quite a while.

    • bittermann
    • 3 years ago

    So Intel gives us exactly what we asked for but at an i5 price. They keep laughing all the way to the bank. God I hope Zen is a real winner.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      If a Ryzen CPU lands in this price range at launch, I’ll eat your hat.

        • bittermann
        • 3 years ago

        You do realize that there are going to be multiple ZEN sku’s in different price brackets at launch right? That is why they are waiting to release it so they have ample stock. And that all ZEN cpu’s will be unlocked…I won’t make you eat anything as competition is good. At least for the non fan boys.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 3 years ago

          None of them will be sub-$200, and if they are, I’ll eat your hat.

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            No, I don’t play that childish fan boy crap…eat your own.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            you’re playing the childish fanboy game by insisting that a Ryzen CPU will compete with this at launch.

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            LOL you got all that out of this: “God I hope Zen is a real winner”.

            Um sure OK… 😐

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            we’re talking about a Core i3. It’ll be fine, but it’ll be fine at a high price. The logic leap you have to take to get to “you’re not talking about a Core i3 competitor” is one bridge too far.

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            LOL OK

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            I suspect that the low-end binned stuff will end-up being there though. Like how Phenom X4 was the high-end back in the day while the lower-end dual-core version of silicon sold under Athlon brand (Athlon X2).

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            Sure, there might be a 4C/8T CPU (I was opposed to this idea before, but it’s possible), but if it’s less than $200 then Ryzen is a catastrophic failure.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            I’ll put it this way: if I can get a 4C/8T Ryzen CPU and motherboard for ~300, I’ll buy one.

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            It entirely depends on performance, price, energy efficiency and [b<]availability[/b<]. Assuming the Zen silicon yields near-Broadwell IPC and energy efficiency then a dual-core/four-thread flavor for ~$100-$150 USD isn't too far fetched assuming that operates at same clockspeeds their Intel counterparts.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            That’s a hell of a harvested die where 3/4 of the CPU cores are disabled. That’s not good for AMD’s bottom line. Raven Ridge will be that APU, but it won’t happen in Q1. AMD’s own slide deck (which TR published last week) still shows Chorizo-based APUs for launch.

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            Harvested dies of that degree are hardly new. Intel does the thing with their E and EP flavors of their big silicon. The customer-tier E chips sold under Core i7 X series are “crap”-tier silicon. Although, Intel sells them at a much larger profit margin. It is due to the utter lack of competition at the high-end CPU market.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            Yeah but Ryzen is going to be a huge chip. Those Broadwell-E chips are $400+ chips. You’re saying AMD will do the same at the sub-$200 market.

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            Don’t even bother arguing. There will be lower priced Zen cpu’s. Let them purchase their
            overpriced i3’s for now.

            • chuckula
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]There will be lower priced Zen cpu's.[/quote<] By that logic, there will be CannonLake-E parts with AVX 512 so don't buy RyZen.

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            Yes please wait. But by all means if you can’t or won’t go ahead and buy overpriced i3 cpu’s because of a lack of competition. Better yet buy the new KL Pentium 6xxx series with hyperthreading to save some really good money. Or wait for Zen and watch Intel’s prices magically drop.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            Oh, so now you *are* playing this game. You got testy when I suggested you were making this argument, but here you are now actually making it.

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            What game? What the f*ck is your problem? Are you mad that Zen is coming or Intel i3’s are overpriced? We don’t need Zen to know that. I honestly have no idea as you keep coming up with arguments about statements I never made? Go bother someone else….seriously, you’re like a turd that won’t flush.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            No I just think it’s hilarious that you think there will be such hobbled chips at launch. Anyway, thanks for the new forum signature, this is awesome.

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            I don’t quite see what’s so hilarious about it but whatever. If they do great, if they don’t I can wait. I won’t lose sleep or eat a hat over it.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            I also like that you [url=http://imgur.com/a/mWzm9<]edited the comment[/url<] specifically just to make an insult.

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            Yes, I thought that was a nice touch for one such as yourself that thinks there is some sort of rivalry and fandom going between hardware vendors. It’s just a cpu, settle down.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            • NeelyCam
            • 3 years ago

            Lol

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            Oh I thought Auxy’s back! Heh.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 3 years ago

            If you post three in a row she’ll appear.

            • Vhalidictes
            • 3 years ago

            Auxy… Auxy… Auxy…

            • NeelyCam
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]It's just a cpu, settle down.[/quote<] Um... it was you who intentionally edited to add an insult. Maybe you should settle down...? Is it me, or do you sound a bit... bitter?

            • bittermann
            • 3 years ago

            No I just wanted him to stop spamming me using arguments I never brought up. But I guess you had to chime in and add a little dig right? Exactly what am I bitter about, wanting competition? Nice thread crap after all was said and done btw. It’s just cpu’s so chill as the comment wasn’t directed at you.

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    I’d love to see you guys put this against, among other suggestions:

    [list<][*<]A G3258, obviously! [/*<][*<]A 2500K at any speed - owners can likely interpolate as necessary from their own experience. [/*<][*<]An i5 at a similar price - the real question of HT vs true cores. [/*<][*<]The 7700K at the same clockspeed - since it's exactly half a 7700K in the CPU core department.[/*<][/list<] Hope you feel better soon Jeff.

      • dragosmp
      • 3 years ago

      +1 all are excellent comparison points

      … and the 8370K as the most popular AMD CPU of late and the one from which most AMD guys are likely to upgrade from.

    • Anonymous Coward
    • 3 years ago

    Bulldozer is boring to see getting bulldozed every review, lets see some new victims from the obsolete category, a Core2 or A64 of some honorable model number.

    • NTMBK
    • 3 years ago

    Could you try overclocking the GPU (preferably with the CPU left stock)? Curious to see just how far these Intel APUs can be pushed.

    • Takeshi7
    • 3 years ago

    Definitely include the Intel Pentium EE 965

    That was the last unlocked dual-core hyperthreaded CPU Intel released before the i3-7350K, 11 years ago.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      Why?

      Pentium 4 EE 965 is going to be hopelessly outmatched and the platform doesn’t even have proper drivers and support for Windows 8, 8.1 and 10.

        • Takeshi7
        • 3 years ago

        It’s not a Pentium 4 EE, it’s a Pentium EE. A small name change but a big difference. Pentium 4 EE were only single core.

        It’s not even an obsolete CPU. It is quite capable and usable. Here is a video of a Pentium EE 965 running the new Doom game at 1080p over 60 fps (sometimes, but definitely still playable).

        [url<]https://youtu.be/HosMiOD3FQw[/url<]

          • Jeff Kampman
          • 3 years ago

          Those maximum frame times beg to differ…

            • Takeshi7
            • 3 years ago

            I dont know what frame times you’re seeing, but besides when he’s in menus, and briefly changing the resolution to 4K, the gameplay is running buttery smooth.

            • Jeff Kampman
            • 3 years ago

            Look at the performance statistics in the upper-right-hand corner of the screen. The CPU is bottlenecking the system horribly. Max frame times over 30 ms are terrible performance in Doom.

            • Takeshi7
            • 3 years ago

            yeah, but it still looks very playable. You should still include it to show how much progress has been made on unlocked, dual-core, hyperthreaded CPUs.

            • Jeff Kampman
            • 3 years ago

            It’s not playable compared to the performance of modern systems 😀

            • Takeshi7
            • 3 years ago

            I’m pretty sure I can go to the store right now and find a brand new modern system that runs Doom worse than that.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            That would be an excellent TR project. Find a new machine which is slower than a topped-out one centered on some form of Netburst.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          It is a Pentium 4 XE and it was sold as such back in its heyday. The model number indicated that it was dual-core. The normal desktop versions of dual-core Presters and Smithfields were sold as Pentium Ds. The gimmick of XE line was that it operated at 1066Mhz FSB (800Mhz FSB for non-XE Netburst chips) and was completely unlocked.

          That video clearly shows that poor 780Ti is severely CPU-limited by that highly overclocked 4.8Ghz Presler core.

          The newcomers don’t know or remember how bad the Netburst architecture was. It makes Bulldozer look decent by comparison. It is even worst when you factor in energy efficiency.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 3 years ago

      I applaud the idea, but perhaps it would destroy the charts. As much as bulldozer is humiliated at every appearance, its a monster compared to anything P4-related.

        • Takeshi7
        • 3 years ago

        It wouldn’t destroy the charts. It would make sure the charts have to start at the 0 axis (which all good charts should do anyways).

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 3 years ago

          True, maybe they should have one around just to make sure everyone notices the axis starts at zero.

      • basket687
      • 3 years ago

      Core i5 655K was an unlocked dual core CPU with hyperthreading, it was released in 2010.

        • Takeshi7
        • 3 years ago

        I stand corrected. They should include that i5 655K in their tests as well as the Pentium EE965. Hard to believe they’ve only released 3 processors with that configuration in more than a decade.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    How about including the FX-8350 in the benches? Yes, yes I know it’s a dinosaur and no, no I’m not an undercover AMD shill but I think at $150 it’s a credible ‘other option’ for the average Joe.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 3 years ago

      I’ll probably use the FX-8370 we have as part of the testing lineup, but it’s not at all a “credible option” for anybody these days with the advent of Kaby Lake and Ryzen so close to launch. Even the FX-8370 consistently finishes in last place in 99% of our tests in the Core i7-7700K review.

      There is literally zero reason to consider any Bulldozer/Piledriver chip for a new build at this point in time.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        I kinda agree but at least putting it there might be helpful for anyone looking to buy an 8350. Discourage him, perhaps.

        I can vouch for this CPU tho. Had mine since December ’12.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        It all depends on the price!

          • ronch
          • 3 years ago

          I think the FX-8350 at $150 is fine, but shelling out $20 or so for what is effectively a ‘useless’ 100MHz increase in Turbo clock speeds is just disingenuous on AMD’s part. The FX-8300 is more compelling once you realize it’s just $90 and you can essentially clock it like an 8350.

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        Maybe if they start getting dumped for peanuts when Ryzen comes along I guess. That would have to include the motherboard to be cheap enough to be appealing though, otherwise say 50 off the processor price isn’t much in a total build price.

        tl;dr I’ll give any of you tree.fiddy for your FX builds.

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      Sure you’re an undercover shill, you’re *always* there when it’s about AMD.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        Oh hey look here’s grumpy ol’ Meadows!!! Say “Hi!!!” everybody!!!

      • Tom Yum
      • 3 years ago

      FX-8300 is the best AMD option IMO, I bought mine for a cheap build for $90, oc’d to 4.95Ghz using 1.35V. Really happy with it, definitely isn’t challenging the i7’s of the world but great bang for buck. Hardly ever gets mentioned by tech sites, not sure why.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        In isolation there’s nothing wrong with the FX-8300. It’s cheap and has more cores than the equivalent cost Intel stuff for excellent multitasking/multithreaded workloads, but you buy it knowing that the tradeoff is high power draw and woeful IPC that still struggles (even at 5GHz) to catch up with $60 Intel Pentiums in common single-threaded tasks.

        The problem is that you never look at CPUs in isolation:
        [list<][*<]The architecture is an abandoned dead-end. [/*<][*<]The boards have bad chipsets with quite concerning bugs even after all this time [/*<][*<]The chipsets still lack modern features, meaning add-in cards or onboard chips that drive up the board cost. [/*<][*<]The high power draw, especially when overclocked, mandates a more expensive PSU and cooler, with higher electricity bills [/*<][*<]Ignoring the costs, the heat/noise is undesirable all by itself and limits you to larger form factors. No compact cases, no silent HTPCs, increased case temps for GPU cooling etc[/*<][/list<] It's the sort of thing you can only tentatively recommend, and even then only with the caveats of a very low-budget, short-lifespan build. Come March, it will probably be impossible to even tentatively recommend one 🙁

          • Topinio
          • 3 years ago

          Nothing’s in isolation, as you say — so why not look at the A10-7890K with a $30 better GPU, or A10-7870K (or FX-6350) with a $50 better GPU, than the one matched with the i3-7350K?

          • ronch
          • 3 years ago

          * That the architecture is a dead end is actually relevant only for AMD, the ones who need their cores to be ‘evolvable’ for future product development and minimal R&D costs because they can reuse the same designs more times.

          * I won’t say the 990FX platform is bad. Sure it’s a dinosaur but given how M.2 isn’t really all that much faster than good ol’ SATA SSDs in REAL WORLD USE means you’re not really missing a whole world of amazing technology when you go with a 990FX board.

          * They lack modern features, that’s for sure. On paper they can’t be all that good. But in real world use, I don’t really mind if my USB 3.0 controller sits inside a southbridge or a separate chip. And it’s not like it makes the board draw much more power. Sure it’s better if the USB 3.0 controller is inside the SB but really, if it isn’t, it’s OK.

          * The FX is power hungry once you reach a certain point, and I personally never even dared overclock my 8350 after 4 years of use. However, there’s a certain attractiveness to getting an 8-core for just $90. And IMHO if you shell out $90 for an FX-8300 and clock it like it’s an FX-8350 I don’t think you’d go way beyond what a ‘real’ FX-8350 draws. I would expect power draw to be pretty much similar. The 8350 doesn’t need exotic cooling either; a Hyper 212 EVO will work very well. I’ve been using a Deepcool Gammax 400 with my 8350 since April 2013 (lived with the stock cooler for 4 months) and it’s been fine. Quiet and sufficient. So bottomline is, $90 for an FX-8350 equivalent is pretty compelling even if it’s a dinosaur, at least for me.

          *There’s no denying that you can’t put an FX-8xxx inside an SFF PC, and I doubt many people have tried or even want to. But then not everyone wants an SFF anyway.

          * To be sure, I wouldn’t recommend an FX-8350 to anyone these days because I’d be doing them a disservice for the sake of my affinity for AMD and my appreciation of how you can get a fine CPU for just $150. Yes I know what it is and what it isn’t, so you need to understand what you need before you go get these cheap 8-cores and determine if you’d still want them.

          • Tom Yum
          • 3 years ago

          Oh I agree with you, I wouldn’t recommend anyone build an AM3 platform now, merely stating that the FX-8300 is a better bang for buck processor than FX-8350, as you get the same unlocked number of cores and cache but its cheaper and oc’s the same. I bought it (probably 1.5 years ago now) purely to check it out and much around with oc’ing it as high as I could go, not for performance per say. The FX-8300 is cheaper than any Intel i3, and though the i3 will beat it in gaming, there is a certain satisfaction with getting 50% extra peforrmance out of a dirt cheap processor.

          Its the best AMD option, but not a recommended option, sadly.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]Its the best AMD option, but not a recommended option, sadly.[/quote<] AMD's CPU story for almost five years.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        These SKUs by the ‘sidelines’ usually hardly get any attention. You’ll find reviews here and there but that’s about it. That doesn’t mean they’re bad, of course. Thank the heavens for the concept of binning when it comes to ICs.

      • ptsant
      • 3 years ago

      Better in multithreaded, completely hopeless in single-threaded.
      Probably better to spend a little more and get the 4-core Intel.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 3 years ago

      IIRC for gaming, Bulldozer was outclassed by Sandy Bridge i3s as well.

    • Ochadd
    • 3 years ago

    Sandy Bridge quad core
    G3258
    8 Core AMD CPU

    • sophisticles
    • 3 years ago

    I’d like to see a thorough review of Kaby Lake’s Quick Sync encoding capabilities, speed and quality.

    MSU did a test where Skylake’s QS beat x264+placebo and x265+very slow in SSIM and PSNR and Kaby Lake is supposed to be better, plus it supports hardware VP9 encoding.

    Software that supports QS includes DivX, Staxrip, Hybrid and FFMPEG and associated FFMPEG based GUI’s.

    • Billstevens
    • 3 years ago

    Probably a pretty good chip based on the speed and overclock capability, but the price seems steep for 2 cores unless HT has gotten a lot better at simulating 4 actual cores than it was back in the early days. Maybe it has.

    Otherwise I think I would rather have a locked 4 core i5 for that price if possible.

    Hopefully AMD gives Intel some much needed competition in this segment to keep pricing sane.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]unless HT has gotten a lot better at simulating[/quote<] Yes speaking of that, I'm quite interested to know how much hyperthreading has progressed. Maybe some tests specifically aimed at hyperthreading.

    • HERETIC
    • 3 years ago

    Hi Jeff,wishing you a fast recovery……………………………….

    What would be a nice comparison would be a i5-7400 and a Pentium with HT.
    That’ll give us the true value of this chip…..
    Power users are going to buy a 7700 or 7600 anyway.

    • xeridea
    • 3 years ago

    $170-180 for a dual core is nuts.

      • strangerguy
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah, Intel’s market segmentation is currently bonkers. I would only consider the $64 2C/4T G4560 or just go all the way up to a 7700K if I’m building a new system. Their $200 segment has never been less appealing, too many compromises for too much money over G4560 or save too little over a 7700K.

    • Eversor
    • 3 years ago

    I’d be interested in seeing how this stacks up with DDR4-2400 vs DDR4-3000+, overclocked. Also would be interesting to compare to the new HT enabled Pentium G4560/G4600 and the cheapest i5.
    Games seem to prefer more cores nowadays (and extra cache) but I’m guessing that even without an overclock it may be similar.

    Other interesting CPUs:

    – i5-3470 (~$75 bucks on eBay)
    – i5-3570 (similar)
    – i5-2500
    – Phenom X6
    – Phenom X4
    – FX-8350

    Given lower overhead, a focus on Mantle enable games would also be interesting. Non gaming benchmarks usually scale ok with multiple cores and one can extrapolate more accurately.

      • christos_thski
      • 3 years ago

      all are good suggestions, but I have to PARTICULARLY concur on comparing with i5-2500. It’s a milestone CPU and we would get a great idea of both the new i3 as well as how the 2500 stands today.

        • Airmantharp
        • 3 years ago

        Make sure to add the ‘K’ where appropriate- non-K SKUs are different parts!

    • CScottG
    • 3 years ago

    Please, after running the usual suspects err, tests – de-lid the sucker, use some good metal thermal “paste”, re-lid it, and then attach a really good cheap water cooler to it.. (and of course over-clock the absolute sh!t out of it).

    This water-cooler would be perfect for the task:
    [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835186152[/url<] THEN compare that to the usual suspects (again).

    • Voldenuit
    • 3 years ago

    Also, I’d like to know if the i3 (dual core, 4-thread) will be a bottleneck to hitting 120+fps for gamers with VRR displays, if possible.

    Which might entail a bigger games selection at more graphical settings, and with more videocards than a typical CPU review, but it might be worth it, especially if the i5 2500K is resurrected into the mix.

    • EndlessWaves
    • 3 years ago

    Focus on the stuff that’s hard to predict. We don’t need test results against a 6100/7100 as they’re entirely predictable from clock speeds.

    So the primary contemporary test competitors should be a Lake i5, a Sky Lake Pentium and a Kaby Lake Pentium to cover quad core without SMT, dual core without SMT and dual core with SMT but less cache and other bits disabled.

    In terms of other chips an A12-9800, FX-9590, i5-2500K would be the obvious choices to cover low end AM4 and how well popular older chips bear up. Maybe throw in a Phenom II X6 to see how well the old hexacores are holding up.

      • juampa_valve_rde
      • 3 years ago

      Being in Jeff’s place i would totally assemble an fx9590 and a smithfield pentium d, they would be very helpful providing heat to battle against the flu.

    • Duct Tape Dude
    • 3 years ago

    Suggested outdoor test suite: [url<]http://i.imgur.com/PjFmLy7.jpg[/url<] Please post OC results.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      Condensation is a big problem though. 😉

        • K-L-Waster
        • 3 years ago

        On the plus side, look at the size of the liquid cooling reservoir!!!

        • Duct Tape Dude
        • 3 years ago

        We prefer the term “regenerative evaporative cooling.”

    • Cuhulin
    • 3 years ago

    First things first: Be well!

    People are more important than chips.

    The review will be better when you are healthy!

    • DrDominodog51
    • 3 years ago

    I think it would be good to compare the 7350k to the G3258 because both were made to fill the same market segment.

    • nico1982
    • 3 years ago

    I think these 4 should do, both at stock and OC:
    i5-2500K because has almost become a SI unit 😛
    i7-7700K because it is twice the 3750K.
    An unlocked AMD APU in the same price range.
    The Pentium AE.

    No need for an another i3, the 3750K at stock speed is not going to be any different than previous iterations.

      • Chuckaluphagus
      • 3 years ago

      I’ll second all of these recommendations, but especially the Pentium AE. The 7350k isn’t in the same budget range, but it’s the closest thing Intel has released since then.

    • Takeshi7
    • 3 years ago

    You should include these processors as a comparison:
    Core 2 Quad
    i7 920 Nehalem
    i5 2500K
    i7 2600K
    Atom Z3735
    Phenom X4
    FX 8370
    VIA Nano quad

    Basically everything else that is 4 threads or higher.

    Edit: You should also compare it to the last great dual core, hyperthreading, unlocked Intel CPU: The [b<]Pentium Extreme Edition 965![/b<]

      • tay
      • 3 years ago

      Here’s a shorter list

      i5 2500K
      i5 4670K
      i5 Skylake of some sort
      i7 7700K
      Phenom X4

      • Duct Tape Dude
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]VIA Nano quad[/quote<] What about those of us who want to read the article before the end of the century?

    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    I’m pretty sure an overclocked i3 will challenge the value proposition of the i5 lineup (locked and unlocked) in many benchmarks. Be mindful to explore areas where the i5’s 4 full cores have any benefit over the i3’s 4 threads. Readers are going to want to know if/why they should even consider an i5 now.

      • MOSFET
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]Readers are going to want to know if/why they should even consider an i5 now.[/quote<] Precisely; even savvy readers will be keenly interested in the i3/i5 battle here. I would really like to know, however it can be quantified or just subjective personal impressions, how a 7350K system [i<]feels[/i<] in regular use/daily driver mode versus more enabled current cores. With 45 anti-virus anti-malware programs installed, does Windows take any longer to boot and become ready, while also starting up Outlook with a 5GB .pst, and maybe Chrome with 50 tabs? Comparables wish list: Bigger current core (Sky or Kaby big chips, i5 and i7), fairly equivalent cores from any generation (Pentiums and i3's from Sandy forward, many as possible), Kaveri top model. Also, commenter [b<]juampa_valve_rde[/b<] has great suggestions in this thread.

        • nanoflower
        • 3 years ago

        As far as daily use I suspect there will be no apparent difference. Certainly I see that when comparing my former CPU (overclocked G3258) vs what I have no (OCed 4770K). It only when trying to do multiple things at once or those things that really push the cpu (compressing large directories or some games) that you can obviously see the difference. The ability to run 4 threads at once should help the new I3 run much better in areas where the G3258 fell down.

          • Voldenuit
          • 3 years ago

          I’m curious, though, how many background tasks can you get away with until it starts bottlenecking a dual(or even quad)core CPU?

          Battle.net, Steam, Discord, Shadowplay, Twitch, and that’s just what I have on the spare monitor.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah, as far as suggestions for competing cpus, I’d love to see the overclocked 7350k get featured throughout the entire benchmark results (as opposed to on just one small selection). Hell, have two overclocked versions (a “max” and something more 24/7-worthy).

      The overclocking is a really big deal and it’d be a shame to shortchange yourself on that opportunity.

    • Techgoudy
    • 3 years ago

    Please be sure to compare this to the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge i5s and i7s (most notably the k versions). I, as well as many of my peers, have not upgraded since Sandy and Ivy. I am truly curious to see how this processor stacks up against some of these older gen CPUs.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 3 years ago

    Half a Core i7-7700K for half the price isn’t as bad of a value proposition as I first thought.

    I think you should test it against the i3-6100 (drop-in OC), i5-2500K/3570K (good for upgraders on older systems), and whatever FX processor is in that price range (6350, another “good for budget upgraders” option), assuming you test it prior to Ryzen’s launch.

    Feel better soon, Jeff!

      • RAGEPRO
      • 3 years ago

      It is actually more or less in the same price range as the FX-9590, [url=http://pcpartpicker.com/product/pGrG3C/amd-cpu-fd9590fhhkwof<]which is $199.[/url<] Closer is the [url=http://pcpartpicker.com/product/8mrcCJ/amd-cpu-fd8370frhkhbx<]$185 AMD FX-8350.[/url<] Sad times for AMD. Sadder still is that this little Core i3 will assuredly stomp all of those processors at basically any task.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        For most uses, it’s going to be a bloodbath, which is awesome, but there are some edge cases where the i5 or the FX might fare better. Gonna be pretty rare for what most folks do, though.

    • unclesharkey
    • 3 years ago

    You didn’t get a flu shot?

      • WulfTheSaxon
      • 3 years ago

      Flu vaccines are only about [url=https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm<]50% effective[/url<] (and their cost vs benefit is [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22191794<]probably a wash[/url<] for healthy, working-age adults).

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        I get it for free, so I always get one, but you’re right about the effectiveness. It’s always a toss-up.

      • tritonus
      • 3 years ago

      Against influenza, usuallu more than 50% effective. Against every other flu-virus (a great majority), no effect at all. Still useful in preventing the worst influenza illnesses.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      I always get the shot, but the shots by no means stop 100% of possible flu infections.

    • turtlepwr281
    • 3 years ago

    2600k please!

    • cmrcmk
    • 3 years ago

    I’d like to see it against the next best Kaby Lake i3, the oh-so-pleasant Pentium G3258 and an entry level i5 (Kaby Lake’s i5-7400 if you have one on hand which has an MSRP of $182; the Skylake or Haswell equivalent would be great, too). I think for most buyers, the comparison to the i5 is the most valuable. If $3 buys you 4 full cores instead of 2 hyper cores, those hyper cores better have insane GHz assigned to them.

    • juampa_valve_rde
    • 3 years ago

    i3 6100, i5 6500 and 7600, and a couple of historicals if posible, like the i5 2500K that a lot of gamers still use.

    And budget videocards, this kind of CPU rarely will be paired with gtx 1070 or 1080, budget friendly will be paired more frecuently with 1060, 1050, rx 480 and 470 or such.

      • whm1974
      • 3 years ago

      Amen!!!

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      I agree with above. Seems like you should be looking to test this CPU against others in it’s price range. The i3-6100 and i5-6500K ought to sandwich this thing in performance given their price. FX-8370 for a representative from the AMD camp.

      TR usually includes a decent lineup of generational comparisons in their CPU reviews. Just check out [url=https://techreport.com/review/31179/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-cpu-reviewed<]the Kaby Lake i7-7700K review[/url<] Agreed with the GTX1060 / GTX1050Ti and RX480/RX470 GPUs being the most realistic GPUs for a CPU of this class. But CPU reviews aren't focused on GPU results as much so I know it's easier to use 1 GPU for ALL CPU reviews so you can easily extrapolate the results. I've been hearing some mutterings lately about AMD or Intel, high end or low end CPUs doing better or worse on Nvidia GPUs compared to AMD GPUs or vice versa. Possibly a topic for another article.

        • juampa_valve_rde
        • 3 years ago

        Absolutely, a single or a couple videocards, i didnt mean all of those GPU, but any of the perf-mainstream segment to have a something closer to the average john doe gaming rig.

          • DPete27
          • 3 years ago

          John Doe is typically used in referenced to an unidentified dead male. Not sure he’d be gaming 😉

      • TravelMug
      • 3 years ago

      Agree fully. The i3-6100 because it was (is) the top choice in the i3 range for the Skylake ones, the i5-6500 because again it was recommended all the time as a cheaper non-OC option and people did go for it and the i5-2500K because it is a legend.

      Realistically I don’t think an i7-2600K belongs in the batch and I wouldn’t bother with the Pentium AE either.

      • gerryg
      • 3 years ago

      Test both against similar price range, but also a couple historical. Doesn’t need to be everything, but should be sufficient so we can string together past CPU reviews and make deductions about how it compares against our older stuff that was in prior reviews.

      E.g. this review has A, B, C; a prior review has C, D, E, F; and before that we had F, G and H. So now I can compare A to H with some back-of-the-wet-napkin math. 🙂

      • Ninjitsu
      • 3 years ago

      Would like to see it paired with a 1080 as well to see if it bottlenecks it or not.

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    Hi Jeff! I hope you feel better soon and we are looking forward to that review.

      • juampa_valve_rde
      • 3 years ago

      Hope you get well soon!

      • ColeLT1
      • 3 years ago

      Get well soon Jeff!

    • Voldenuit
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]Because of its pricing, we're having a little bit of an internal debate about what chips to test the i3-7350K against in our review. [/quote<] Rhyzen.

      • juampa_valve_rde
      • 3 years ago

      Raven ridge ES

      • RAGEPRO
      • 3 years ago

      If only.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 3 years ago

      Should this be against an extrapolation from what was seen at a demo, or against what tha interwebz thinks Ryzen will do?

      • hansmuff
      • 3 years ago

      I believe the Ryzen will be h-less..

      .. hah

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        Whoops, thx 4 that. Hopefully it’ll be a Rightzen and not a Whyzen, or I’ll be Cryzen.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Oatmeal Rayzen cookies are my favorite.

      • Jigar
      • 3 years ago

      Call Damage for the ES, i am sure he can help.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This