Intel Core i3-8100 and Core i3-8350K Review: RIP Ryzen 3?

[Julio Franco]

For $180 the Core i3-8350K is nearly a rebadged Core i5-7600K: both are 14nm quad-cores operating at ~4GHz, but the 8350K is 25% cheaper. Meanwhile, the Core i3-8100 goes for a more appealing $120. And although it's locked at 3.6GHz, it's roughly 40% more affordable than a comparable i5 from the last generation.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1499-intel-core-i3-8100-i3-8350K/

 

[dirtyferret]

Right now if I was looking to build a gaming PC I would wait until the Intel budget boards launch in early 2018 and toss a 8400 into it. AMD has nothing that competes with it at that price point for gaming.

http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-i5-8400-review-the-best-new-gaming-cpu-in-years/

 

[Puiu]

From what I've seen from other places once you OC the 1200 to ~3.8-3.9GHz the difference in games is equaled (wins some and loses some and the difference is very small) and productivity is also very similar. I just can't recommend the i3 8100 until the cheaper boards are released in Q1 2018.

The unlocked i3 8350K can just be ignored as it's not a good value CPU and you also need to buy a good cooler for it to get to very high clocks. Both Intel and AMD have better products you can buy.

 

[Puiu]

Right now if I was looking to build a gaming PC I would wait until the Intel budget boards launch in early 2018 and toss a 8400 into it. AMD has nothing that competes with it at that price point for gaming.

http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-i5-8400-review-the-best-new-gaming-cpu-in-years/

I agree, the 8400 looks to be a winner for mid range gaming rigs. I wonder if AMD can shake things up with Zen+ in 2018 again.
Competition does miracles, like Intel releasing a 6 core CPU for under 200$ (even if they disabled HT).
The 1600 still wins in some productivity tests once you OC it, but for gaming the 8400 is basically an 7700k in terms of overall performance. (unfortunately pcgamer is lazy when it comes to OC results)

I would wait for the proper extensive i5 lineup benchmarks done by @Steve here. I trust those more.

 

[dirtyferret]

I would wait for the proper extensive i5 lineup benchmarks done by @Steve here. I trust those more.

TPU has benchmarks on the 8350, 8400, 8600 and 8700 as well
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/?category=Processors&manufacturer=&pp=25&order=date

 

[Reehahs]

Love this line:

"As it happens, the Core i3-8350K really is a worthy successor to the 7350K: they both suck equally in respect to their own product lines."

 

[Agnomen]

Love this line:

"As it happens, the Core i3-8350K really is a worthy successor to the 7350K: they both suck equally in respect to their own product lines."

I got a little chuckle out of that myself.

 

[Kenrick]

Bring out the h series motherboards before christmas!!!

 

[lrschum]

Love this line:

"As it happens, the Core i3-8350K really is a worthy successor to the 7350K: they both suck equally in respect to their own product lines."

Although the 7350k and 8350k aren't really that comparable due to the latter's extra two physical cores, I'd actually argue that given current prices for the 7350k (now around $120-130), it is sort of vindicated by this review, as the 7350k holds up pretty well in the lists here. Better stock clock (4.2 vs 4), better overclock potential (most 7350k chips go to 5ghz at low voltages no problem), much lower power consumption (60w vs 95w) at stock and overclock. Throw in the fact that I just got a new, MSRP $170 Supermicro Z board for $18 a couple weeks ago, and the release of Coffee Lake seems like it has made getting a 7350k and Kaby Lake in general more worthwhile.

 

[dirtyferret]

Love this line:

"As it happens, the Core i3-8350K really is a worthy successor to the 7350K: they both suck equally in respect to their own product lines."

It's not accurate though. Both are quality CPUs as per their respective benchmarks.

The real line should be; Both CPUs are equally overpriced and redundant in respect to their product lines.

 

[BSim500]

For the sake of $10, the i3-8350K doesn't make any sense at all vs the i5-8400. There never used to be a huge $50 premium for, eg, i5-3570K vs 3570 or Pentium G3258 vs G3250. OTOH, that i3-8100 looks a really nice budget chip once the H310 / B360 boards come out. Basically, an i5-7500 cut to $110. Amazing what a little healthy competition will do...

 

[Benjiwenji]

Disappointed at Intel's lack of efficiency.

Intel used to have two qualities that edges over AMD, power efficiency and IPC.

In CoffeeLake, we are seeing no real increase in IPC per core, just like the last 5 generations.

However, power efficiency also went straight out a window. 6c/12t 8700k has a higher power consumption than the 8/161800x. Intel ought to step up.

 

[Puiu]

TPU has benchmarks on the 8350, 8400, 8600 and 8700 as well
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/?category=Processors&manufacturer=&pp=25&order=date

It pretty much says what I was expecting. The 8400 will lose to an OCed 1600 in CPU tests, but it will win in the gaming tests. It sits at 14% in the nonOC results vs the 1600 which is the same result that Techspot got in their own 1600 vs 7700k gaming results if both are not OCed.
But since the 8400 can't really OC even with BCLK changes I expect the 1600 to close the gap to around 5% because it was ~10% compared to the 7700k once both were OCed.

This is why I want to wait for the techspot results. They generally also add both the AMD and Intel OCs in the same benchmarks so it's easier to compare. You'll have a better idea of the min/max performance of both.

Either way, I think AMD needs to reduce the price of the CPUs by ~10-15$ to make them more competitive once the cheaper intel motherboards start arriving in Q1 2018 which should very doable. At the moment they are still fine because Coffe Lake is mostly a paper launch.

 

[lrschum]

Love this line:

"As it happens, the Core i3-8350K really is a worthy successor to the 7350K: they both suck equally in respect to their own product lines."

It's not accurate though. Both are quality CPUs as per their respective benchmarks.

The real line should be; Both CPUs are equally overpriced and redundant in respect to their product lines.

Yes, at retail prices. You can get a 7350k for 30-40% off now, though. It becomes an interesting little chip when it's the same price as a retail 7100. If you play games that rely on only one or two cores for most things, then it's hard to beat. I was surprised to see how it does pretty well against the 8100, even though the 8100 has two more real cores.

 

[dirtyferret]

Either way, I think AMD needs to reduce the price of the CPUs by ~10-15$ to make them more competitive once the cheaper intel motherboards start arriving in Q1 2018 which should very doable. At the moment they are still fine because Coffe Lake is mostly a paper launch.

Not so much a paper launch as a "your island is flooded, have a free roll of paper towels" launch

A user from [H]ardOCP has posted on the website's forums an exchange he had with the customer service over at Newegg. If availability of Intel's latest 8th Gen CPUs was rumored to be limited before, this seems to bring some more credence to those reports. Case in point: over at Newegg, orders for the Core i7 8600K processor are currently being put on back-order, with estimated shipping dates of 15 to 20 days. Pore over the it 8799K processor, though, and you'll find it currently out of stock.

Newegg has apparently ordered over 3000 units fo the Core i7 8700K alone to keep pace with demand (these have been well-received chips as you can see on TPU's own reviews), and expects these to come in at around a "3 to 5 weeks" time-frame. What separates This availability problem from being simply an issue of overly high demand is that Intel's Coffee Lake processors were already expected to be limited in availability even before they were launched. Remember that while Intel probably had such six-core processors as these taped out well in advance already, they did pull up their launch window so as to better compete with current AMD Ryzen offerings.
https://www.techpowerup.com/237695/...availability-of-intel-core-8th-gen-processors

 

[dirtyferret]

Yes, at retail prices. You can get a 7350k for 30-40% off now, though. It becomes an interesting little chip when it's the same price as a retail 7100. If you play games that rely on only one or two cores for most things, then it's hard to beat. I was surprised to see how it does pretty well against the 8100, even though the 8100 has two more real cores.

When I was looking to re-build my gaming PC over the summer, my decision came down to the Ryzen 1600 or Intel i5-7600. The ryzen was $200 while I picked up my 7600k for just $159 (still $20 cheaper then the 8350k).

 

[dirtyferret]

It pretty much says what I was expecting. The 8400 will lose to an OCed 1600 in CPU tests, but it will win in the gaming tests. It sits at 14% in the nonOC results vs the 1600 which is the same result that Techspot got in their own 1600 vs 7700k gaming results if both are not OCed.
But since the 8400 can't really OC even with BCLK changes I expect the 1600 to close the gap to around 5% because it was ~10% compared to the 7700k once both were OCed.

.

eteknix has some OC stats with the 8400, 1600, and 1600x.

Gaming wise at 1080p, FPS varied between a minimal and 10% lead by the 8400 depending on the game.
https://www.eteknix.com/intel-core-i5-8400-6-core-6-thread-cpu-review/5/

 

[Vulcanproject]

8100 on a budget board (eventually) looks like a gaming winner without overclocking. Overclocking isn't for everyone but Ryzen just begs you to do it.

Therefore even a Ryzen 1200 on a budget board overclocked represents excellent gaming value.

 

[Puiu]

For some reason people are using known facts, numbers and good sources to support their opinions and statements. It feels ... really weird. Is this real? Am I alive?

 

[Amet Monegro]

Right now if I was looking to build a gaming PC I would wait until the Intel budget boards launch in early 2018 and toss a 8400 into it. AMD has nothing that competes with it at that price point for gaming.

http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-i5-8400-review-the-best-new-gaming-cpu-in-years/

AMD has Ryzen+ on February at 12nm, 10 to 15% higher clocks, fixed "Infinity Fabric"

grettings

 

[kapital98]

Steven,

Great review. I watched your Youtube review this weekend in making my decision. The i3 is an amazing chip but those motherboards are too expensive right now. As soon as they come down in price it will be the go-to pick. The onboard intel GPU is a good office solution.

I picked up the Ryzen 1200 and mobo combo for $150 in order to build a new media server.

Thanks for the review!

 

[rabblerouzr]

I'll concede that the i3-8350K is underwhelming in benchmarks and multi-core applications. The only spot it stood a chance was gaming, and overclocked at that. But there were no overclocked benchmark results comparing it in games, why not? Can any of the listed benchmarks be translated directly to any of the games that were tested at stock settings? Especially against the i5-8400 or the R5 1500X? How about its TDP vs its closest relative the i5-7600K when overclocked?

I genuinely want to know, as I've recently ordered one as an alternative to the i5-7600K which I had settled on prior to Coffee Lake release, for use in a gaming PC. If it is really that bad, I can at least keep the Z370 board and upgrade CPU once stock and prices settle in. I find it annoying at best that there is no decent option for gaming in the $200-240 range right now, and there is certainly going to be a large performance gap between the i3-8350K and the i5-8600K when each are overclocked.

 

[enemys]

So... 8100 will be a hit when budget mobos come, but these won't be around untill about the same time Ryzen+ comes out? Seems like Intel got the CPUs right, but got into trouble with chipsets and supply chain. The budget market will be exciting... Next year. All looks good for consumers, though.

 

[mmd nmvr]

I hope I get to see my core i5 7400 compete against 8400 in the next review

 

[Slavjan]

Can't honestly say I'm sold with the i3 line. The 8100 basically matches the R3 in performance and doesn't offer any upgrade path without costing a premium that puts it in competition with higher-end CPUs.

The 8350K literally needs to be at least $70 cheaper to compete with the non-currently thread limited i5, or the 1600 due to the cost of Z370 motherboards and the aftermarket cooler it needs. Then you also consider the budget range it's targeting and any extra performance due to clock it has goes out the window when you pair it with, at best, a GTX 1070.

Intel just can't seem to nail the i3s. Well at least not in a good way.