# Intel Core i3-8350K 4.0 GHz



## W1zzard (Oct 5, 2017)

The Core i3-8350K is the first quad-core CPU in Intel's i3 arsenal, priced at $180 and clocked at 4 GHz, even when all four cores are active. Overclocking is extremely easy due to the "K" suffix and has the potential to turn this processor into a budget overclocker's dream.

*Show full review*


----------



## dj-electric (Oct 5, 2017)

Wow, talking about losing in the silicon lottery. That's surprisingly horrible. One would assume 5Ghz wouldn't be a hard mission with a middle of the road i3 8350K...
I do think this CPU is a little expensive, and would prefer the 8400 in the long run. IMO this should have been a 150$ CPU.


----------



## Henry8000K (Oct 5, 2017)

Will it bottle-neck a high end GPU?


----------



## Vya Domus (Oct 5, 2017)

So damn expensive , the  8400 is a whopping 10$ more but has 50% more cores. I am still baffled why these unlocked i3s exist at this price point. Doesn't seem to break any record in overclocking and single thread performance either.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 5, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> So damn expensive , the  8400 is a whopping 10$ more but has 50% more cores. I am still baffled why these unlocked i3s exist at this price point. Doesn't seem to break any record in overclocking and single thread performance either.


Same, the K privilege is too expensive.
With that price, the AM4 platform's longevity, and cheaper cost of overclocking enabled motherboards seems a better choice.
The i5 8400 on the other hand is a monster, we just need cheap motherboards for it.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 5, 2017)

Interesting part. For $50 more than a 1300x, you are getting a few % higher ipc, 600mhz more out of the box and better overclocking. At the same time, more cores and threads are available at the same pricepoint.

Plenty of people dont need more than 4 cores and overclock... but that premium though...


----------



## Mescalamba (Oct 5, 2017)

Maybe silicon lottery needs some other settings changed, just an idea.. Unsure if its the case ofc.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Oct 6, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> So damn expensive , the  8400 is a whopping 10$ more but has 50% more cores. I am still baffled why these unlocked i3s exist at this price point. Doesn't seem to break any record in overclocking and single thread performance either.



^ This. Sure the 8400 is locked, but it's only $10 more and, like you said, you get 50 percent more cores. To me, that's a no brainer. Then again, I'm not much of an overclocker, lol.


----------



## Vario (Oct 6, 2017)

Mescalamba said:


> Maybe silicon lottery needs some other settings changed, just an idea.. Unsure if its the case ofc.


Could be the motherboard too?


----------



## Frick (Oct 6, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> So damn expensive , the  8400 is a whopping 10$ more but has 50% more cores. I am still baffled why these unlocked i3s exist at this price point. Doesn't seem to break any record in overclocking and single thread performance either.



And no stock cooler, so this might end up costing more than the i5 8400.


----------



## Kissamies (Oct 6, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> So damn expensive , the  8400 is a whopping 10$ more but has 50% more cores. I am still baffled why these unlocked i3s exist at this price point. Doesn't seem to break any record in overclocking and single thread performance either.


This is like 7600K so I don't feel bad for the price. Hell, I don't even feel bad that I bought my 7600K one month ago at 255 euros.

Terribly low overclocker though, let's just hope that it's not a common thing.


----------



## trog100 (Oct 6, 2017)

Henry8000K said:


> Will it bottle-neck a high end GPU?


 
no.. not at normal gaming resolutions..

trog


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 6, 2017)

Finally good gaming CPU's again on the budget. If these can be clocked to 4.7 or 4.8 (or even 5GHz) this can be a sweet budget gaming CPU. AMD has the core count game, but I hope new Ryzen CPU's will also be able to push some clocks...


----------



## Frick (Oct 6, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Finally good gaming CPU's again on the budget. If these can be clocked to 4.7 or 4.8 (or even 5GHz) this can be a sweet budget gaming CPU. AMD has the core count game, but I hope new Ryzen CPU's will also be able to push some clocks...



"Finally" is a bit of a stretch as the Pentium G4560 has existed for a while now. Seriously, that thing destroys any performance/price chart and is good enough for the vast majority of even gamers. It's excellentness cannot be overstated, and the Coffee Lake Pentiums and the entry level i3's are the really interesting releases this cycle.


----------



## jabbadap (Oct 6, 2017)

Frick said:


> "Finally" is a bit of a stretch as the Pentium G4560 has existed for a while now. Seriously, that thing destroys any performance/price chart and is good enough for the vast majority of even gamers. It's excellentness cannot be overstated, and the Coffee Lake Pentiums and the entry level i3's are the really interesting releases this cycle.



Yeah I tend to agree. Hardware unboxed tested recently cpu bottlenecking, and came to conclusion that g4560 is enough for gtx1060 at 1080p. Those pentiums actually are only intel cpus, that amd has no competitive product out yet(where are you raven ridge).


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 6, 2017)

G4560 is "just" a dual core. It's really time we move to actual real cores clocked so high.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2017)

> "Just" a quad-core


How is that a negative in this price segment?


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 6, 2017)

8350K may as well be the coming from the outter layer of silicon wafer that has worse electronic property. That can explain the worse overclocking potential. They are essentially just parts that have potentially defective cores which are cut off to become a quad core


----------



## looniam (Oct 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> How is that a negative in this price segment?


i guess because anything ryzen ~180 is 4/8. the 4/4 chips are ~50 less.

so yeah, blame AMD!


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2017)

looniam said:


> i guess because anything ryzen ~180 is 4/8. the 4/4 chips are ~50 less.
> 
> so yeah, blame AMD!


Number of cores should be irrelevant for an unbiased conclusion, only performance metrics should matter. I don't care if the competition have 100 cores, real performance within its segment is what matters.


----------



## Mescalamba (Oct 6, 2017)

Vario said:


> Could be the motherboard too?



Given his description. Thing is, if CPU is "dud" usually it simply doesnt boot or wont even make it to loading Windows. There is most likely some setting that needs to be altered (or mobo changed) to make it stable.

Sure, most of my experience is with older CPUs, but even with new CPUs its very rarely that easy as "select higher multiplier and more voltage". Also given how i3 works, there is a lot of stuff that can be affected by higher clocks and higher voltage, its sorta "all in one" CPU.

But I might be wrong, thats also option. What I know for sure is that I would try to experiment till it dies.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 6, 2017)

looniam said:


> i guess because anything ryzen ~180 is 4/8. the 4/4 chips are ~50 less.
> 
> so yeah, blame AMD!



The issue with Ryzen is that it doesn't clock that high. 4GHz is what almost all achieve, but for really good utilization you need it at least at 4.5+. As much as I love Ryzen, that is an issue and I hope AMD needs to address that for Zen+/Zen2.


----------



## looniam (Oct 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Number of cores should be irrelevant for an unbiased conclusion, only performance metrics should matter. I don't care if the competition have 100 cores, real performance within its segment is what matters.


yeah sure right. problem is people will look at cores and make a purchase decision.

you ask a question and i gave an answer. not my problem if you don't like it.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2017)

looniam said:


> yeah sure right. problem is people will look at cores and make a purchase decision.
> 
> you ask a question and i gave an answer. not my problem if you don't like it.


Sure, numbers count for many buyers, I'm aware of that. But we should expect an unbiased review without such nonsense. If individual buyers prefer numbers, that's their problem.


----------



## looniam (Oct 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Sure, numbers count for many buyers, I'm aware of that. But we should expect an unbiased review without such nonsense. If individual buyers prefer numbers, that's their problem.


so an unbiased review would be what YOU find relevant but not to the masses?

ok. got it.


----------



## jabbadap (Oct 7, 2017)

Just wondered have there been anywhere these getting delidded? I find it quite suspicious that shops are full of these i3s with good stock. While six core coffee lakes are hard to find at all. So are they really same core or is these just rebranded kaby i5s.


----------



## Kissamies (Oct 9, 2017)

What I've heard that they are Kaby 7700K chips with HT disabled.


----------



## letho (Oct 10, 2017)

Henry8000K said:


> Will it bottle-neck a high end GPU?


yes, at least for me, using 1080ti and 1080.


----------



## kanecvr (Oct 15, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> 8350K may as well be the coming from the outter layer of silicon wafer that has worse electronic property. That can explain the worse overclocking potential. They are essentially just parts that have potentially defective cores which are cut off to become a quad core



Because feature wise it competes with the Ryzen 3 1300 witch is a much cheaper CPU (65$ cheaper in my neck of the woods), and unlike the 8350k it is in stock at most e-tailers. The R3 1300 I played around with easily reaches 4GHz, and AM4 mainboards are a lot cheaper. A 100$ board + a ryzen 3 1300 allows overclocking, witch narrows the performance gap quite a bit (MSI B350 Mortar Arctic + R3 1300 does 4.1 Ghz easily) while costing half of what a Z370 + 8350k costs. In fact for that money you can get a Ryzen R7 1700 + a good B350 mainboard here - and again, they are in stock. They might not have the same single core performance due to ryzen's 4-4.1 ghz OC limitation, but it comes quite close, and offers 4 more cores and 8 more threads for the same money so it's a great work CPU as well.

I'm quite disappointed actually. I expected the 8350k to be in the same price range as the quad core ryzen chips, but it's not. The price of the chip and a z370 board makes it a poor choice in my view - and before you start recommending a cheaper board, consider the point of a K series CPU if you're gonna use it on a mainboard witch does not allow overclocking.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Oct 15, 2017)

kanecvr said:


> Because feature wise it competes with the Ryzen 3 1300 witch is a much cheaper CPU (65$ cheaper in my neck of the woods), and unlike the 8350k it is in stock at most e-tailers. The R3 1300 I played around with easily reaches 4GHz, and AM4 mainboards are a lot cheaper. A 100$ board + a ryzen 3 1300 allows overclocking, witch narrows the performance gap quite a bit (MSI B350 Mortar Arctic + R3 1300 does 4.1 Ghz easily) while costing half of what a Z370 + 8350k costs. In fact for that money you can get a Ryzen R7 1700 + a good B350 mainboard here - and again, they are in stock. They might not have the same single core performance due to ryzen's 4-4.1 ghz OC limitation, but it comes quite close, and offers 4 more cores and 8 more threads for the same money so it's a great work CPU as well.
> 
> I'm quite disappointed actually. I expected the 8350k to be in the same price range as the quad core ryzen chips, but it's not. The price of the chip and a z370 board makes it a poor choice in my view - and before you start recommending a cheaper board, consider the point of a K series CPU if you're gonna use it on a mainboard witch does not allow overclocking.



^ This. So much this. Not to mention, the 8350K's seem to be especially power hungry (for a quad core) once overclocked, which is the whole point of buying  a K processor to begin with.. From Tech Spot's i3-8350K review, specifically discussing the CPUs power consumption once OCed to 4.9 GHz: 

"_The Core i3 CPU also runs much hotter despite having a far better AIO liquid cooler strapped on. _








_Finally, here's a look at power consumption after overclocking. At 4.9GHz the 8350K is a power pig, consuming much juice as the six-core 8700K. Compared to the Ryzen 5 1500X, which pushed system consumption up almost 20% higher once overclocked, the 8350K stepped on the gas peddle and pulled 40% more power. Needless to say, efficiency goes right out the window."_


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 15, 2017)

What did you expect overclocking something nearly 25%/900mhz over base versus 1300/x which maxes out ~12%-14%/400-500 mhz over its base?? AMD CPUs can barely get past their own boost. He mentions "4.1 ghz easy" yet thats really the absolute max out of it with a vast majority hitting 4ghz.

The techspot review also managed to max out the (bleh)wraith cooler at 4ghz hitting 92c. Strap the same aio on it and you are still likely in the 80s peak.

In the end the difference is $100 between cpu and comparable motherboards (thinking asrock z370 pro 4 - 10 phase vrm). It isnt fair to use a lower chipset from amd while using a z based one for intel.  Again, still a price difference...but $100 isnt much when building a whole new system. Some want more mhz and slightly better IPC (has nothing to do with clockspeeds) and overclocks a ton more.. "Worth" is in the eye of the beholder. For my money, gaming on a quad, i want the best ipc and fastest clocks.


----------



## kanecvr (Oct 24, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> He mentions "4.1 ghz easy" yet thats really the absolute max out of it with a vast majority hitting 4ghz.



You are correct. On air your avarage guaranteed overclock for the 1300x is 3.8GHz, with most reaching 4GHz. Some "golden chips" will do up to 4.5 GHz - my sample does 4.4 but I have to lower memory speed to 2800MHz otherwise I get stability issues - and don't get me started on the temps. Once you go over 4.1, the 1300x gets hot. Not 7700k level hot, but still pretty hot, requiring a basic water cooling solution or a big-ass(tm) air cooler like the Thermaright Macho HR02 or the Deepcool Lucifer.



EarthDog said:


> In the end the difference is $100 between cpu and comparable motherboards (thinking asrock z370 pro 4 - 10 phase vrm). It isnt fair to use a lower chipset from amd while using a z based one for intel.  Again, still a price difference...but $100 isnt much when building a whole new system. Some want more mhz and slightly better IPC (has nothing to do with clockspeeds) and overclocks a ton more.. "Worth" is in the eye of the beholder. For my money, gaming on a quad, i want the best ipc and fastest clocks.



I agree, it's not fair, but the only motherboards available for Coffee Lake are Z370's - intel has yet to release the low and mid end solutions, and Coffee Lake is not compatible with 1xx and 2xx chipsets, so you're stuck with an expensive motherboard just like 8-9 years ago with LGA1366. Even if you could buy a cheaper board - say when intel releases the H370 or B360? chipsets, you won't be able to overclock, so there's no point in buying the 8350k - might as well get a cheaper non-k model.

As for the price difference - I'm NOT buying a whole new machine - most of us here on this forum will not either - we're just replacing the CPU + Mainboard (and ram in some cases) so those 100$ count, since they can cover the cost of DDR4 memory for those of us who are migrating from DDR3 (like me).


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2017)

@kanecvr

Still... people will be happy to pay a premium for better performance and overclocking. A z370 board can be had for around 200 and still happily take the hex overclocking. Its a pittance more compared to comparable x370. 

4.4 ghz, ehh? I assume thats benchmark stable only? How many cores? What cooling is used? Not ambient i assume....

Also, if you are reaching 4.4, you are at cascade range for clocks on that cpu... the fastest ones only ran 4.1-4.2 ghz using ambient cooling at hwbot. Id love to see some screenshots of your 4.4 ghz cpu running some benchmarks and to clarify your cooling methods (And id like to point you towards OCFs benching team)...otherwise im calling BS.


----------



## kanecvr (Oct 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> @kanecvr
> 
> Still... people will be happy to pay a premium for better performance and overclocking. A z370 board can be had for around 200 and still happily take the hex overclocking. Its a pittance more compared to comparable x370.
> 
> ...



...it takes 1.5v to reach 4.4Ghz. The mainboard I used is an MSI B350 Mortar Arctic, and the system was not 100% stable, witch leads me to believe that ryzen's memory controller can't handle that clock rate... shame. Maybe they'll fix it in ryzen+. The cooler used is a deepcool captain 240, and the CPU will still reach 80 degrees and throttle down - so - to get the machine to benchmark at 4.4 I had to disable throttling in BIOS, witch made it stable for the first 30 minutes or so, after witch it would pop a memory related BSOD. For stability you need to keep throttling enabled, and the CPU will go down to 4.2 GHz under load, and burst to 4.4 GHz when cool enough.

As for other people reaching 4.4, some have managed to get this speed on the 8 core 1700 and 1700x - google it yourself. 4.3Ghz is within reach for most 6 core chips - again, do a google image search for CPU-Z screenshots - there's even shots of 8 core "golden chips" running at 4.3GHz @ 1.4v. My sample would BSOD at 4.3GHz using 1.4v just after booting... 

The CPU I used was purchased for a relative's PC (cousin) - I myself only own a AM4 motherboard so far (the aforementioned MSI). As soon as the CPU arrived, I borrowed some DDR4 from my sister's 6600k (Corsair Vengeance 3000MHz CL15) and started playing around with it. Since then I finished his machine ( ryzen 3 1300x / Asrock A320 mainboard / 8GB Crucial 2400MHz DDR4) and sent it off. My DDR4 kit should arrive by the end of the week, and hopefully I'll have enough cash to buy a 1700 by december. 

In any case, the extra performance is not worth the heat and possible CPU damage from running at 1.45-1.53v required for that clock speed... best to stick with 4.0-4.1 GHz.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 26, 2017)

So, not even a screenshot? Nothing? What benchmark were you able to run in '30 minutes' of stability??? If you did it before, it can be done again. I'm happy to chew on my foot... mouth is wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide open for this one. 

In the meantime, I'll leave you and those reading, with this:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/ryzen_3_1300x/

Highest Super Pi 1M submission was almost 4.2 GHz on water. That's one thread. Highest CPUz capture was 4.3 GHz on an AIO. That's just a screenshot and nothing against it. Highest 1700x CPUz capture was almost 4.4 GHz. Highest Super Pi 1M on water is 4.25 GHz with 2 cores and threads. 

Anything above 4.1 GHz stable is a unicorn. I hope you have one, but, just not buying it was anywhere near stable if it is not reproducible with screenshots. Only with extreme cooling have we seen this before really.


----------



## smilydog (Nov 21, 2017)

Hi All

Just pulled the trigger on an I3-8350K, £132 Uk plus £100 Asrock pro 4 mobo, seems to make sense to me as it is a rebadged I5-7600K which i can only see for £200 + £80 mobo. I dont game so having to put £50+ for a graphics card for Ryzen just makes no sense


----------



## Jetster (Nov 22, 2017)

letho said:


> yes, at least for me, using 1080ti and 1080.


I don't think so. A 1080ti isn't even fully utilised at1080


----------

