• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

What do you guys think of the i3-7350k?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
So this isn't the first low range CPU that Intel has made overclock friendly. We all remember the Pentium G3258 from Haswell, which was just a memento for the anniversary of the Pentium. But I think that this is utterly ridiculous. They're making an i3 overclockable...why???

Intel is really confusing with their choice of CPU lineup. The i3, in my opinion, is a product sku that shouldn't even exist. Or at least not while the Pentium and Celeron are still around. An overclockable dual core with hyper threading... Who is this for?

This comes back to the point that Intel should really start phasing six core CPUs into consumer lines. I think it's time for them to get their heads out of their rear ends and stop nickel and diming for two cores. i3 becomes quad, i5 becomes quad with hyper threading, and i7 becomes hex. For crying out loud the 6800k is only $100 more than the 6700k! But then an X99 board will run you $200-$250 minimum when an 1151 board is easily obtainable for under $100. It makes no sense, none whatsoever. Or maybe I just really don't understand marketing.
 

Tech Tweaker

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Well, an overclockable i3 isn't a new thing, Intel had them back in the LGA1156 era, I had some fun overclocking my i3 530 a while back. It's just been a while since they've had them, just because it seems like they wanted to stick it to the customers by forcing them to pay more if they wanted a more easily overclockable processor for the past 5-6 years. For some odd reason they thought that overclocking should be a feature they should charge more to get (bad for the customer, good for the company).

I don't understand the terrible value though, as it's currently estimated for an MSRP of $170-180 according to rumors. Frankly I think it'd be a more reasonable value at 120-160, considering it's a dual core. Even being a dual core with four threads, it shouldn't theoretically match a true quad core in overall performance, and probably shouldn't be priced like a quad core processor (but according to the leaks (or rumors) it's going to be priced close to a mid-range quad core CPU in price).

As to why, because some builders might like having an overclockable processor for less money... But don't want to step down to the super low end Celerons' or Pentiums'.
 
OP
Vishera

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
If they do price it like a lower end i5 then they're ****ing stupid, no two ways about it. That they would add an overclockable dual core before adding a mainstream six core is just mind boggling to me. They should go back to having everything overclockable like AMD does. And speaking of AMD, at the end of the day i think this is Intel's pathetic attempt at a fail-safe for Zen. What's the pricing looking like for Zen hyper threaded chips? I heard they might be hitting low 200s for quad cores.
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
I'm watching this with interest as I have a Z170 board with a non-OC CPU in it at the moment. If this sucker can break 5 GHz easy on air, I'm in. I do tasks that benefit from having fewer faster cores than lots of slower ones, although it depends on the optimisation at the time. I can't go to the lower processors than i-series since I need AVX support which has been removed from lower ones.

I also think 6 OC cores on mainstream dual channel mobos wouldn't be as fun as it sounds as it'll be so ram bottlenecked it isn't worth it. If they also bring quad channel into mainstream, I'd go with that.

Zen - too many unknowns to speculate much at moment to see how they fit into the picture.
 

Woomack

Benching Team Leader
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
I don't think that 6 cores on something like 1151 would be bottlenecked as now X99 platform with average memory like 2133-2666 can make about as high bandwidth as Z170 with 3200 memory even though there are 2 channels difference.
I just see no point of unlocked i3 for anything else than competitive benchmarking. HT is not scalling like real cores and for games is often better lower i5 than overclocked i3. I guess that Intel is releasing it so users won't try to use modified BIOS/UEFI as they had big problems to handle this situation with i3 6000 series. If they can't block it then they want to earn money from that.
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
In my testing of HT it can provide between 0 to 50% more throughput relative to a single core. Taking the i5-6400 for comparison, that's 2.7 GHz base with 3.3 GHz max turbo. If the i3 can be overclocked to nominal 5 GHz, it would be roughly equivalent to a quad running between 2.5 to 3.75 GHz depending on how well a task can make use of HT. So my original point remains, its value as an OC CPU depends on getting to 5 GHz ball park without too much effort.

Personally I don't consider dual channel 3200 (even dual rank) as adequate to feed overclocked quad core Skylake.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I have to agree with Woomack here. While this is a neat chip, like the g3258 + HT, it really doesn't tickle many in the right plaCES outsode of the tiny enthusiast overclocking world. Unless budget dictates getting an i3, it's not something most gamers or enthusiasts would get (quad core).
 

cyberfish

Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Location
London, England
This comes back to the point that Intel should really start phasing six core CPUs into consumer lines. I think it's time for them to get their heads out of their rear ends and stop nickel and diming for two cores. i3 becomes quad, i5 becomes quad with hyper threading, and i7 becomes hex. For crying out loud the 6800k is only $100 more than the 6700k! But then an X99 board will run you $200-$250 minimum when an 1151 board is easily obtainable for under $100. It makes no sense, none whatsoever. Or maybe I just really don't understand marketing.

The problem is with more cores you also need higher memory bandwidth to feed the cores so memory doesn't become the bottleneck. That means more memory channels.

Each memory channel requires about 20 signals for addresses, and 64 signals for data, and a few dozen miscellaneous signals. These are all high speed signals with strict delay- and impedance-matching requirements.

For two additional channels we are looking at more than 200 extra signals. That means a much larger socket with more pins, and much more difficult routing for the motherboard (more layers, higher cost). I suspect that's where most of the motherboard increase in price comes from. Like you said, the CPU isn't much more expensive (though more memory controllers are required in the CPU as well).

There's also the fact that very few people get LGA2011 consumer boards, so there's a much smaller market with less economy of scale.

I don't think an estimated MSRP of $170 to $180 is really unreasonable.

If you can get it to 4.6 GHz or so (should be very easy with only two cores pumping out heat), it will perform much better than a 2.3 GHz i5, even without considering HT. They will perform identically on perfectly parallelized workloads, and the i3 will have much higher single core performance (or on programs that aren't perfectly parallelized, which is more or less all of them).

And then there's HT that adds about 20% on average.

I would take a 4.6 GHz i3 over a ~3 GHz i5, and a 3 GHz i5 is unlikely to be cheaper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cyberfish

Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Location
London, England
There's the i5-6400. Also quite a few just over 3 GHz. They are arguably marginally better than a 4.6 GHz i3, but also marginally more expensive.

If there's a 2.3 GHz i5, it would have to be much cheaper than this i3.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Slowest i5 I think is 2.7ghz. Others are right in that 3ghz+ range. It would take at least low 4ghz range to beat most of them. You can also lock in highest turbo on all cores on the i5 that do not overclock. It certainly can be done.
 
OP
Vishera

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
It's just bizarre for me to think that I bought my 4460 for the same price they're thinking of listing this i3 for. I never thought I'd see such an expensive dual core these days.

It might perform well for a dual core if you overclock it. But then what about games that flat out won't boot on less than a quad? There are games that flat out break on dual cores, such as GTA five. It's a lot of smoke and mirrors to cover something that isn't as great as they want you to believe.
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Are you saying GTA5 wont run on an i3? I can test that if I can be bothered with another 50GB+ download onto one of my i3 systems, depending on what spare GPU I have to throw in with it and power it. I doubt a game will be able to tell between a fast dual with HT and a not so fast i5. Both will present 4 threads to the system. If the effective computing power is too low, that's another matter. The i3 would have to be clocked somewhere between 4.3 and 6.4 GHz to match a similar generation i5 @3.2 GHz for example, depending on how much benefit the software makes of HT. I'm not figuring in any architectural differences between Haswell and -lake processors in that which will also give further benefit to the i3k.
 
OP
Vishera

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
There's a demonstration video by a YouTube channel known as Salazar studio that shows gta on a single core, a dual core, dual core with hyper threading, and a quad. Granted, it was an i7 with cores disabled, but it's still a proof of concept. A dual core is not going to do very well in gaming.
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
The problem is with more cores you also need higher memory bandwidth to feed the cores so memory doesn't become the bottleneck. That means more memory channels.

Each memory channel requires about 20 signals for addresses, and 64 signals for data, and a few dozen miscellaneous signals. These are all high speed signals with strict delay- and impedance-matching requirements.

For two additional channels we are looking at more than 200 extra signals. That means a much larger socket with more pins, and much more difficult routing for the motherboard (more layers, higher cost). I suspect that's where most of the motherboard increase in price comes from. Like you said, the CPU isn't much more expensive (though more memory controllers are required in the CPU as well).

There's also the fact that very few people get LGA2011 consumer boards, so there's a much smaller market with less economy of scale.

I don't think an estimated MSRP of $170 to $180 is really unreasonable.

If you can get it to 4.6 GHz or so (should be very easy with only two cores pumping out heat), it will perform much better than a 2.3 GHz i5, even without considering HT. They will perform identically on perfectly parallelized workloads, and the i3 will have much higher single core performance (or on programs that aren't perfectly parallelized, which is more or less all of them).

And then there's HT that adds about 20% on average.

I would take a 4.6 GHz i3 over a ~3 GHz i5, and a 3 GHz i5 is unlikely to be cheaper.

I don't think multi channel memory is the answer the bench marks prove it. There is marginal gains in performance, Each 64bit core can only prefetch so much data at a one time during a memory 4 channel 256 bit read time. I would be nice to go dual CPU and memory banks for consumer level, it would guarantee twice the performance.
 

Theocnoob

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Location
Near Toronto Canada
I'm one of those people who doesn't see the point of the i3. An expensive unlocked i3, even less. For the average user, a Pentium is fine. It really is. I've built a few machines with pentiums. The i3 is a strange beast. It makes little sense as a product, at least at the prices Intel charges. I totally agree we need to go to quad core i3, quad with HT i5, and hex with HT i7 on the mainstream platform as soon as possible.

Intel has no reason to innovate when AMD isn't right up their tailpipe innovating and undercutting prices. I really hope ZEN lights a fire under Intel's butt.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Are you saying GTA5 wont run on an i3? I can test that if I can be bothered with another 50GB+ download onto one of my i3 systems, depending on what spare GPU I have to throw in with it and power it. I doubt a game will be able to tell between a fast dual with HT and a not so fast i5. Both will present 4 threads to the system. If the effective computing power is too low, that's another matter. The i3 would have to be clocked somewhere between 4.3 and 6.4 GHz to match a similar generation i5 @3.2 GHz for example, depending on how much benefit the software makes of HT. I'm not figuring in any architectural differences between Haswell and -lake processors in that which will also give further benefit to the i3k.
There Are Titles That REQUIRE 4 threads or it won't work, correct.

There are several titles (nkt a majority, but enough to note...) out there that show significant performance losses with a dual compared to quad compared to quad w/ht. Look up some performamce reviews of games at techspot. ;)


As far as renames, lol, that won't happen.. i3 = dual with ht... i5 = quad...i7 = quad with HT or better. They have to redo their entire marketing and lineup...which can haplen, but they aren't simply making a quad in i3 form...
 

cyberfish

Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Location
London, England
I don't think multi channel memory is the answer the bench marks prove it. There is marginal gains in performance, Each 64bit core can only prefetch so much data at a one time during a memory 4 channel 256 bit read time. I would be nice to go dual CPU and memory banks for consumer level, it would guarantee twice the performance.

Yeah it's really more for server/cluster-type workloads, not so much consumer.

I agree that it would be nice for them to make something with a higher core:memory ratio for consumers, but the demand is probably not high enough to justify the development cost. At the moment their enthusiast consumer stuff is basically just low end Xeons with ECC disabled.