The Intel Core i3-7350K (60W) Review: Almost a Core i7-2600K
by Ian Cutress on February 3, 2017 8:00 AM ESTLegacy and Synthetic Tests
At AnandTech, I’ve taken somewhat of a dim view to pure synthetic tests, as they fail to be relatable. Nonetheless, our benchmark database spans to a time when that is all we had! We take a few of these tests for a pin with the latest hardware.
Cinebench R10
The R10 version of Cinebench is one of our oldest benchmarks, with data going back more than a few generations. The benchmark is similar to that of the newest R15 version, albeit with a simpler render target and a different strategy for multithreading.
With high frequency in tow, the Core i3-7350K makes its mark.
When more threads come to play, the Core i5-7400 and Core i7-2600K battle it out in terms of four cores and IPC vs hyperthreading. The Core i3-7350K sits around ~25% behind.
Cinebench R11.5
CB11.5 has been popular for many years as a performance test, using easy to read and compare numbers that aren’t in the 1000s. We run the benchmark in an automated fashion three times in single-thread and multi-thread mode and take the average of the results.
Similar to CB10, the single thread results show that a 4.2 GHz Kaby Lake is nothing to be sniffed at. In the multithreaded test, CB11.5 is more able to leverage the hyperthreads, showing that a Core i7-2600K will run rings around the low end Kaby i5, but is bested by the higher frequency Kaby i5-K. The Core i3 still has that dual core deficit.
7-zip
As an open source compression/decompression tool, 7-zip is easy to test and features a built-in benchmark to measure performance. As a utility, similar to WinRAR, high thread counts, frequency and UPC typically win the day here.
The difference between the i3-7350K and the i5-7400 shows that 7-zip prefers cores over threads, but the Core i7-2600K results show it can use both to good effect, even on older microarchitectures, scoring almost double the i3-7350K.
POV-Ray
Ray-tracing is a typical multithreaded test, with each ray being a potential thread in its own right ensuring that a workload can scale in complexity easily. This lends itself to cores, frequency and IPC: the more, the better.
POV-Ray is a benchmark that is usually touted as liking high IPC, high frequency and more threads. The i7-2600K, despite having double the resources of the Core i3-7350K, is only 30% ahead.
AES via TrueCrypt
Despite TrueCrypt no longer being maintained, the final version incorporates a good test to measure different encryption methodologies as well as encryption combinations. When TrueCrypt was in full swing, the introduction of AES accelerated hardware dialed the performance up a notch, however most of the processors (save the Pentiums/Celerons) now support this and get good speed. The built-in TrueCrypt test does a mass encryption on in-memory data, giving results in GB/s.
186 Comments
View All Comments
Ian Cutress - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
There are some minimum frame rate numbers in Bench, however they're not all regular (they're based on pure min, not 99%). The goal is to have some nicer numbers in our testbed update. Soon. When I find time to finish the script ... :Dfanofanand - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
"This RGB fad that apparently sells like hot cakes"I love you Ian! In a totally hetero way.....
Seriously though great article, this should silence all the crybabies who whine about the lack of "Anandtech style in-depth analysis". You are still the best CPU reviewer in the biz!
jgarcows - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
I'm still running an i5-2400 at default speeds that I paid $205 for when it first came out. It is insane how slow the improvement of intel chips have been. You'd think by now an i3 would be an upgrade.crashtech - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Frame times would be what hurts the i3 in games if anything. The averages may not be telling the whole story.djscrew - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Don't count on this being the new norm. Even though Intel just invalidated a long standing policy and the perception that these are inferior chips with this change I don't think it will lat. The next process shrink will likely bring with it a die size change leaving the i3 people who want to upgrade a few years down SOL. They could simply roll back this "feature" and we're back to status quo.fanofanand - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Your comment doesn't make sense. The next node will require a new chipset and ANYONE with today's mobos will need to upgrade, EVERYONE will be SOL.jaydee - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Conclusions page: "A good example of this is Agisoft: the Core i5-7400 (which costs $14 more, quad core, 3.4-3.8 GHz) completes the work ~10% quicker."Do you mean the i5-7400 @ 3.0-3.5 GHz, or the i5-7500 @ 3.4-3.8 GHz?
Ian Cutress - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
Ah yes, I meant the 7400. I had 2600K numbers in my head at the time. :)name99 - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
"and goes in line with the fact that Intel has officially stated that one of the key features of the new 14+ process is that the transistors are more ‘relaxed’ and there’s no decrease in density."Remember those days when Intel was slagging TSMC for no transistor scaling? Ah good times.
[img] https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/201... [/img]
I guess TSMC just decided to "relax" their transistors...
name99 - Friday, February 3, 2017 - link
"The latest memory technology to hit prime time is Intel and Micron’s 3D XPoint. "Where "hit prime time" means "may ship some time in 2019"?
No-one cares about 3D XPoint in SSDs; and the DRAM version seems utterly MIA since the initial enthusiastic Intel claims. (Come to think of it, much like Intel 10nm ...)