The Intel Core i3-7350K (60W) Review: Almost a Core i7-2600K
by Ian Cutress on February 3, 2017 8:00 AM ESTGrand Theft Auto V
The highly anticipated iteration of the Grand Theft Auto franchise finally hit the shelves on April 14th 2015, with both AMD and NVIDIA in tow to help optimize the title. GTA doesn’t provide graphical presets, but opens up the options to users and extends the boundaries by pushing even the hardest systems to the limit using Rockstar’s Advanced Game Engine. Whether the user is flying high in the mountains with long draw distances or dealing with assorted trash in the city, when cranked up to maximum it creates stunning visuals but hard work for both the CPU and the GPU.
For our test we have scripted a version of the in-game benchmark, relying only on the final part which combines a flight scene along with an in-city drive-by followed by a tanker explosion. For low end systems we test at 720p on the lowest settings, whereas mid and high end graphics play at 1080p with very high settings across the board. We record both the average frame rate and the percentage of frames under 60 FPS (16.6ms).
The older Core i7-2600K eeks out a small ~5 FPS advantage over the Core i3 when running a GTX 980 at 1080p maximum settings, but with all other GPUs the differences are minimal. With integrated graphics, the Core i3 shows it can pummel the older IGP into the ground.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
186 Comments
View All Comments
Gich - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Sure, it's progress... but it used to be much more, much faster... so it doesn't feal progress anymore.StrangerGuy - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Things I learned:1. 7350K is hilariously overpriced versus a G4560.
2. Overclocking stock 4.2GHz Intel parts that are already so far from the freq/power sweet spot and little headroom that it's mostly a exercise in futility.
3. That i5 7400 is crazy power efficient.
jaydee - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Regarding point #3.It makes you wonder what the "T" designation is really all about. Is the i5-7600T @2.8 - 3.7GHz (35W), basically the same thing as the i5-7400 (65W), only difference being they downclocked the base 200 MHz and upclocked the turbo 200 MHz. On paper you'd expect the "T" to be way more power efficient, but in actuality I bet they are about the same.
Dr. Swag - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Hey Ian, correct me if wrong, but couldn't you have just downclocked a 7600k to "simulate" an i5 7400? Afterall, the cache is the same so it should be the same except for the TDP...fanofanand - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
That would produce a ton of new variables though, i7's theoretically have gone through more exhaustive binning and are a "higher quality" chip that should be able to operate at higher frequencies with lower voltage. Should being an important caveat there.snarfbot - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
i think microcenter was selling 2600k's for 230 bucks. so 6 years later and you get this pos. progress.fanofanand - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
MicroCenter has long been offering sweetheart mobo + cpu deals, including the 7700K, so I'm not sure what you think you are proving with your comment. Go look at this processor with a mobo at MicroCenter and you tell me what you see.CaedenV - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
2600 was $230, 2600k was $280I only know because I didn't sleep for a week while I made the decision lol. Ended up with the 2600 non-k because it still boosted to 4.2GHz just fine and that was more than enough horsepower for me. Been using it for 6 years... omg... how is there no clear upgrade yet?
SaolDan - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Excellent!Mr Perfect - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Wouldn't testing on Windows 10 have changed the results in favor of the i3 a little? It can't use it's Speed Shift v2 in Windows 7.