The Intel Core i3-7350K (60W) Review: Almost a Core i7-2600K
by Ian Cutress on February 3, 2017 8:00 AM ESTProfessional Performance: Windows
Agisoft Photoscan – 2D to 3D Image Manipulation: link
Agisoft Photoscan creates 3D models from 2D images, a process which is very computationally expensive. The algorithm is split into four distinct phases, and different phases of the model reconstruction require either fast memory, fast IPC, more cores, or even OpenCL compute devices to hand. Agisoft supplied us with a special version of the software to script the process, where we take 50 images of a stately home and convert it into a medium quality model. This benchmark typically takes around 15-20 minutes on a high-end PC on the CPU alone, with GPUs reducing the time.
Here we report the overall time to complete the test – sub-test results can be found in Bench.
Photoscan is a mix of single and multi-threaded segments, but overall the extra cores in the i5/i7 beat the Core i3, but not by much.
Cinebench R15
Cinebench is a benchmark based around Cinema 4D, and is fairly well known among enthusiasts for stressing the CPU for a provided workload. Results are given as a score, where higher is better.
All the Kaby Lake processors seem to do well in CB15 single threaded performance, given that all the K-processors can reach 4.2 GHz or higher one way or another. Nonetheless, the age of the Core i7-2600K is showing here.
Turning the tables with actual cores, and the Core i7-2600K gets a significant leg up here. The Core i5 also sits above the Core i3.
HandBrake v0.9.9: link
For HandBrake, we take two videos (a 2h20 640x266 DVD rip and a 10min double UHD 3840x4320 animation short) and convert them to x264 format in an MP4 container. Results are given in terms of the frames per second processed, and HandBrake uses as many threads as possible.
For video conversion, having small frames puts all three CPUs in a similar spot. But ramp up the frame size and we see the Kaby Lake i5 pull ahead due to IPC and instructions. The Core i3 has enough oomph to match the extra threads on the Core i7-2600K though.
Hybrid x265
Hybrid is a new benchmark, where we take a 4K 1500 frame video and convert it into an x265 format without audio. Results are given in frames per second.
With a different video conversion tool and render, the extra cores and threads of the Core i7 is more than enough to give it a 30% advantage over the Core i3-7350K. It makes me wonder if another +30% frequency would help the Core i3.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
186 Comments
View All Comments
JordanV - Tuesday, February 14, 2017 - link
I think the sales argument for the big Intel chips as video encoders has been for x264 where the faster NVENC, VCE, and QuickSync technologies offer lower quality at a given bitrate for higher quality x264 settings. For most people, the hardware encoders are enough but for many others, the quality is not sufficient.The quality difference between hardware and software HEVC is smaller with higher quality software h265 encodes beating the quality of your Pascal x265 encodes but with a big performance penalty. It's not worth it for most people, but if you have limited bitrate/storage and want the best quality, it might be.
HerrKaLeun - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Thanks for the great review, Ian.Considering one needs an expensive Z-board to OC, for most people buying an i5 makes more sense.
I don't understand why so many people complain about Intel allegedly not making enough progress. Now you get a dual-core that comes close (or even exceeds in single threaded benches) to the former flagship quadcore. If you want to have a CPU that vastly exceeds the "old" quadcore, Intel also has newer quadcores. It is not like the i3 is the end of the lineup.... For the $317 that the 2600k used to cost you can get a KabyLake non-K i7, which sure vastly exceeds in performance (and much lower TDP). I assume someone who could afford an over $300 CPU 6 years ago can afford $300 now and upgrading to an i3 may not be what that person would do anyway. the trend goes to more cores.... most people here complain about Intel not offering mainstream hexa and octa cores... not sure why the same people allegedly are so eager to get dual-cores.
zodiacfml - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Dual core is too weak for me. Web browsing can use more cores.Hulk - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Sorry to be dense.What does 2+2, 4+2, 4+3/e mean?
babysam - Saturday, February 4, 2017 - link
The first number refers to the number of CPU cores. Te second number refers to the IGP configuration (the number of shaders, which may be a little bit different across generations, e.g. Haswell GT3 has 40 shaders, while Broadwell/Skylake GT3 have 48 shaders).The extra e means there is an extra eDRAM cache (Crystalwell) on the CPU package.
Hulk - Saturday, February 4, 2017 - link
Thanks.AndrewJacksonZA - Saturday, February 4, 2017 - link
Thank you babysam.babysam - Saturday, February 4, 2017 - link
Thank you for you article (especially when many of us are waiting on the information of new CPU of both AMD and Intel). It is always good to have something to play (overclocked) with, but this is a little bit expensive.When I read the analysis of the first page, I see the lack of information on the CPU die size and transistor count disclosed by Intel recently. Also, I feel strange that the effect of the change of the 32nm to 22nm (from Haswell to Broadwell) have such a large difference on the 2C+GT2(which Intel claims there is a 37% reduction of the die, which can be seen in the table) and the 4C+GT3(which the difference are much smaller) CPU die. I feel even stranger when I see the Skylake 4C+GT3e die is a bit smaller than the Broadwell 4c+GT3e die. So I am quite curious on the sources of the die estimate.
P.S. I found the origin of the 234mm^2 of the Skylake die size estimate.
https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1177...
which based on the images of the following
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10281/intel-adds-cry...
It seems that the die described is the Skylake-H(which is a 4C+GT4e configuration). This makes the 241.5mm^2 estimate of the Broadwell 4C+GT3e a little bit unrealistic (Skylake GT4e have 72 shaders, while Broadwell GT3e have 48 only)
babysam - Saturday, February 4, 2017 - link
Just find the die size of the Broadwell-H (4C+3e) in this documenthttp://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/embedded/pr...
According to the document, the die size of Broadwell-H (4C+GT3e) should be 13.7mmx12.3mm = 168.51mm^2
(Many thanks for the hints: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/broadwell-cor... , which the got the answer two years ago.)
WoodyBL - Saturday, February 4, 2017 - link
Am I the only one noticing that the i5-4690 was beating the i5-7600k in a lot of benchmarks? I'm having a hard time processing how that was even possible...