3rd generation Intel i3 processors. Intel Core i3 processors
Two fast cores versus four slow ones
Testing methodology
In this case, the processor dependence is already noticeable, and the game is “interested” in physical cores, but it does not disdain additional threads. But at the Core i5 level, we are, in fact, again stuck with the video card.
The only one that seriously “failed” is the Core i5-6400. The assumption made last time that the L3 frequency is very important for the game seems to be correct. Multi-core processors for LGA2011-3 were “saved” here by the number of computation threads being executed, which the game engine “knows how” to properly utilize, but in the younger model for LGA1151 it is, in fact, the minimum allowable for it.
An example of a game that still only needs a couple of cores without any Hyper-Threading, so high-frequency Core i3s look their best. Rare case today :)
Because that happens. In principle, four high-frequency cores are enough for the application - but among today's test subjects, this is the Ryzen 3 1300X. The Ryzen 5 1400 lags behind slightly thanks to SMT. Both Core i5s are already noticeable: four single-threaded cores and a low frequency. All Core i3s are even slower. From a practical point of view, however, the performance can be considered sufficient, but... Paired with some processors, a video card based on the GTX 1070 already produces a hundred frames per second, against which 60 fps is quite bad. You can get by with a slower sampling rate. Note that this applies to all subjects.
In this game the gap from the “best” is no longer so great, but it still exists. Thus, the times when older Core i3 or younger Core i5 were perfect for a gaming computer almost regardless of the video card are in the past. So from this point of view, it’s time to change something in these families :)
Another case when almost ran into a video card, but exactly what almost. That is, it is already desirable to get a little more from processors. Which, however, is logical and fits into the old empirical formula “price ratio 1:2”. In the sense that a similar video card to the one we use in retail costs an average of 35 thousand rubles, this means that a processor paired with it should cost at least 15 thousand (if not a modern one, then with performance at the level of a modern one for the money). And this, after all, is the level of older, not younger Core i5 or Ryzen 5, not to mention the more budget lines. However, their representatives, generally speaking, provide a good level of productivity - but often they themselves limit it.
Total
It is easy to see that, regardless of the presence or absence of inter-company competition (which is still not complete), it was necessary to “shake up” the Intel processor lines that were established many years ago. Of all the reasons, in principle, one is enough: in their current form there is nowhere to develop them, since it is no longer possible to significantly increase the frequencies, not only for the top Core i7. It is clear that it would be more logical to carry out this process “in one touch”, timed to coincide with the release of the seventh generation Core and maintaining compatibility within the same socket (at least the Pentium and Core i3, which have become almost identical, would not look so strange), however, In practice, everything turned out completely differently. 
A little over 8 years ago, Steve Jobs introduced the Macbook Air, a device that ushered in a new class of portable laptops - ultrabooks. Since then, many different ultrabooks have been released, but they all had one thing in common - low-voltage processors with a thermal dissipation (TDP) of 15-17 watts. However, in 2015, with the transition to the 14 nm process technology, Intel decided to go even further and introduced a line of Core m processors, which have a TDP of only 4-5 W, but should be much more powerful than the Intel Atom line with a similar TDP. The main feature of new processors is that they can be cooled passively, that is, the cooler can be removed from the device. But alas, removing the cooler brought quite a lot of new problems, which we will discuss below.
Comparison with closest competitors
And although Kaby Lake processors have already been released, there are no tests of them yet, so we will limit ourselves to the previous line, Skylake - from a technical point of view, the difference between them is small. For comparison, let's take three processors - Intel Atom x7-Z8700, as one of the most powerful representatives of the Atom line, Intel Core m3-6Y30 - the weakest Core m (later I will explain why you should not take more powerful ones), and Intel Core i3-6100U - a popular representative of the weakest line of “full-fledged” low-voltage processors:
An interesting picture emerges - from a physical point of view, Core m3 and i3 are absolutely identical, only the maximum graphics and processor frequencies differ, while the thermal package differs threefold, which in general cannot be the case. Atom has the same TDP as Core m3, comparable frequencies, but 4 physical cores. At the same time, although there are more cores, they are greatly reduced in capabilities to reduce heat dissipation: for example, the i5-6300HQ with 4 “full-fledged” physical cores with the same frequencies has a TDP an order of magnitude higher - 45 W. Therefore, it will be interesting to compare the capabilities of stripped-down and full-fledged architectures with the same heat dissipation.
Processor tests
As we have already found out above, m3 is essentially i3, sandwiched three times smaller in heat package. It would seem that the difference in performance should be at least twofold, but there are several nuances here: firstly, Intel allows Core m not to pay attention to TDP until its temperature reaches a certain point. This is very clearly visible when running the Cinebench R15 benchmark multiple times:
As you can see, the processor scored about 215 points in the first 4 runs of the test, and then the results stabilized at 185, that is, the loss of performance due to such cheating by Intel was about 15%. Therefore, taking the more powerful Core m5 and m7 makes no sense - after 10 minutes of load they will reduce performance to the level of Core m3. But the result of the i3-6100U, whose operating frequency is only 100 MHz higher than that of the m3-6Y30, is much better - 250 points:
That is, when the load is only on the processor, the difference in performance between m3 and i3 is 35% - a fairly significant result. But Atom showed its best side - although the cores were cut down, twice their number allowed the processor to score 140 points. Yes, the result is still 25% worse than the Core m3, but don’t forget about the eight-fold difference in price between them.
The second caveat is that the heat package is designed for both the video card and the processor at the same time, so let’s look at the results of the 3Dmark 11 Performance test: this is a test designed for mid-level PCs (which our systems belong to), testing both the processor and the video card at the same time. And here the final difference turns out to be the same, Core m3 turns out to be 30% worse than i3 (because Core i3 also ceases to have enough thermal package - it needs about 20 watts to operate at maximum frequencies):
Intel Core m3-6Y30:
Intel Core i3-6100U:
But Intel Atom fails miserably - the result is 4-5 times worse than m3 and i3:
And this, in principle, is expected - Cinebench tests the bare mathematical performance of a processor and is only good for comparing processors of the same architecture, but 3Dmark gives a versatile load that is much closer to real life. However, the eight-fold difference in price still allows Atom to stay afloat.
Energy consumption
As can be seen from the tests above, a threefold difference in TDP gives a performance increase of about 35%. However, this is only true under heavy load, which is quite rare for ultrabooks. For convenience, let's take two MacBooks, 12" and 13" 2016 - macOS on different devices is optimized equally well, and this will allow you to find out the difference in the energy consumption of devices without being tied to the operating system (yes, the energy consumption of the entire system is tested below, but only screens and processors, and since the former are very similar, only processors make a significant contribution to the difference in energy consumption). And here the difference turns out to be... only one and a half watts on average, 7.2 and 8.9 W (and the 13" Macbook has a processor more powerful than the i3-6100U):
conclusions
What happens in the end? Intel Atom is a good choice for an inexpensive tablet or netbook, on which no one will run anything heavier than 1080p60 from YouTube. The processor is cheap, and for this you can forgive the difference in performance with the Core lines. Intel Core m is a good choice for a productive tablet or a simple ultrabook. Due to the absence of a cooler, such a device will be absolutely silent, and in normal tasks it will be no slower than its more powerful Core i counterparts. However, it’s clearly not worth taking it for photo or video processing, and even less so for games - the performance quickly comes up against the low TDP and drops quite significantly even in comparison with a simple i3. Well, the Core i line is a good choice for a productive ultrabook. If the system has at least simple discrete graphics, such a device is at the level of gaming laptops from 5 years ago, and allows you to easily process photos and light video, as well as make it possible to play mainstream games even at the lowest graphics settings. However, any load above average will lead to noticeable noise from a small high-speed cooler, which can irritate those who like to work at night in silence.
In the process of assembling or purchasing a new computer, users are always faced with a question. In this article we will look at Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors, and also tell you the difference between these chips and what is better to choose for your computer.
Difference No. 1. Number of cores and support for Hyper-threading.
Perhaps, The main difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors is the number of physical cores and support for Hyper-threading technology, which creates two threads of computation for each actually existing physical core. Creating two computation threads per core allows for more efficient use of the processing power of the processor core. Therefore, processors with Hyper-threading support have some performance benefits.
The number of cores and support for Hyper-threading technology for most Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors can be summarized in the following table.
| Number of physical cores | Hyper-threading technology support | Number of threads | |
| Intel Core i3 | 2 | Yes | 4 |
| Intel Core i5 | 4 | No | 4 |
| Intel Core i7 | 4 | Yes | 8 |
But there are exceptions to this table. Firstly, these are Intel Core i7 processors from their “Extreme” line. These processors can have 6 or 8 physical computing cores. Moreover, they, like all Core i7 processors, have support for Hyper-threading technology, which means the number of threads is twice the number of cores. Secondly, some mobile processors (laptop processors) are exempt. So, some Intel Core i5 mobile processors have only 2 physical cores, but at the same time have support for Hyper-threading.
It should also be noted that Intel has already planned to increase the number of cores in its processors. According to the latest news, Intel Core i5 and i7 processors with Coffee Lake architecture, scheduled for release in 2018, will each have 6 physical cores and 12 threads.
Therefore, you should not completely trust the table provided. If you are interested in the number of cores in a particular Intel processor, then it is better to check the official information on the website.
Difference No. 2. Cache memory size.
Also, Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors differ in cache memory size. The higher the processor class, the larger the cache memory it receives. Intel Core i7 processors get the most cache, Intel Core i5 slightly less, and Intel Core i3 processors even less. Specific values should be looked at in the characteristics of the processors. But as an example, you can compare several processors from the 6th generation.
| Level 1 cache | Level 2 cache | Level 3 cache | |
| Intel Core i7-6700 | 4 x 32 KB | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB |
| Intel Core i5-6500 | 4 x 32 KB | 4 x 256 KB | 6 MB |
| Intel Core i3-6100 | 2 x 32 KB | 2 x 256 KB | 3 MB |
You need to understand that a decrease in cache memory is associated with a decrease in the number of cores and threads. But, nevertheless, there is such a difference.
Difference number 3. Clock frequencies.
Typically, higher-end processors come with higher clock speeds. But, not everything is so simple here. It is not uncommon for Intel Core i3 to have higher frequencies than Intel Core i7. For example, let's take 3 processors from the 6th generation line.
| Clock frequency | |
| Intel Core i7-6700 | 3.4 GHz |
| Intel Core i5-6500 | 3.2 GHz |
| Intel Core i3-6100 | 3.7 GHz |
In this way, Intel is trying to maintain the performance of Intel Core i3 processors at the desired level.
Difference No. 4. Heat dissipation.
Another important difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors is the level of heat dissipation. The characteristic known as TDP or thermal design power is responsible for this. This characteristic tells you how much heat the processor cooling system should remove. As an example, let's take the TDP of three 6th generation Intel processors. As can be seen from the table, the higher the processor class, the more heat it produces and the more powerful the cooling system is needed.
| TDP | |
| Intel Core i7-6700 | 65 W |
| Intel Core i5-6500 | 65 W |
| Intel Core i3-6100 | 51 W |
It should be noted that TDP tends to decrease. With each generation of processors, the TDP becomes lower. For example, the TDP of the 2nd generation Intel Core i5 processor was 95 W. Now, as we see, only 65 W.
Which is better Intel Core i3, i5 or i7?
The answer to this question depends on what kind of performance you need. The difference in the number of cores, threads, cache and clock speeds creates a noticeable difference in performance between the Core i3, i5 and i7.
- The Intel Core i3 processor is an excellent option for an office or budget home computer. If you have a video card of the appropriate level, you can play computer games on a computer with an Intel Core i3 processor.
- Intel Core i5 processor – suitable for a powerful work or gaming computer. A modern Intel Core i5 can handle any video card without any problems, so on a computer with such a processor you can play any games even at maximum settings.
- The Intel Core i7 processor is an option for those who know exactly why they need such performance. A computer with such a processor is suitable, for example, for editing videos or conducting game streams.
In 2010, Intel introduced new brands of processors - Core i3, i5, i7. This event confused many users. And all because the company's goal was completely different - it wanted to offer a faster way to identify models of low, medium and high levels. Intel also wanted to convince users that the Intel Core i7 is much better than the same i5, and this one, in turn, is better than the i3. But this does not give an exact answer to the question, which processor is better or what is the difference between Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors?
But there are still other differences that we will talk about.
Key points
Some users believe that the names i3, i5 and i7 are related to the number of cores in the processor, but in fact this is not the case. These brands were chosen randomly by Intel. Therefore, the chips of all these processors can have either two or four cores. There are also more powerful models for desktop computers, which have more cores and are superior to other processors in many respects.
So, what are the differences between these three models?
Hyper-Threading
When processors were just being born, they all had one core that executed just one set of instructions, namely thread. The company was able to increase the number of computing operations by increasing the number of cores. This way the processor could do more work per unit of time.
The company's next goal is to increase the optimization of this process. They created technology for this. Hyper-Threading, allowing one core to execute multiple threads simultaneously. For example, we have a processor with a 2-core chip that supports Hyper-Threading technology, then we can consider this processor as a quad-core one.
Turbo Boost
Previously, processors worked at one clock frequency, which was set by the manufacturer; to change this frequency to a higher one, people worked overclocking (overclocking) processor. This type of activity requires special knowledge, without which you can cause colossal damage to the processor or other computer components in a couple of moments.
Today, everything is completely different. Modern processors are equipped with technology Turbo Boost, which allows the processor to operate at a variable clock frequency. This increases the energy efficiency and operating time of, for example, a laptop and other mobile devices.
Cache size
Processors typically work with large amounts of data. The operations performed may vary in size and complexity, but it often happens that the processor needs to process the same information several times. To speed up this process, and especially the processor itself, such data is stored in a special buffer (cache memory). Therefore, the processor can retrieve such data almost instantly, without unnecessary load.
The amount of cache memory in different processors is calculated differently. For example, in a low-end processor - 3-4 MB, and in higher-end models - 6-12 MB.
Of course, the more cache memory, the better and faster the processor will work, but this instruction is not suitable for all applications. For example, photo and video processing applications will use a large amount of cache memory. Therefore, the larger the cache size, the more efficient applications will run.
To perform simple tasks, such as surfing the Internet or working in office programs, the cache is not so significant.
Intel processor types
Now let's look at the types of processors, namely the description of each of them.
Intel Core i3
What is it suitable for?: Normal, everyday work with office applications, watching the Internet and movies in high quality. For such processes, Core i3 is the best option.
Characteristic: This processor offers up to 2 cores and supports Hyper-Treading technology. True, it does not support Turbo Boost. Also, the processor has a fairly low power consumption, so this processor is undoubtedly suitable for laptops.
Intel Core i5
What is it suitable for?: More intensive work, such as using video and photo processing programs, many modern games can be played at low, medium and sometimes high settings.
Characteristic: This processor is used in both conventional desktop computers and laptops. It has from 2 to 4 cores, but does not support Hyper-Treading, but does support Turbo Boost.
Intel Core i7
What is it suitable for?: This processor is predisposed to work with powerful graphic editors. You can play modern games at maximum settings, but other components, such as the video card, also play a big role here. You can also view video files in 4K.Characteristic A: At the moment, this chip is the highest grade. It has both 2 and 4 cores and support for Hyper-Treading and Turbo Boost.
We have reviewed the brief characteristics of 3 types of processors, and now you can choose the best one for you.
The popularity of the 8th generation Intel Core i3 series is mainly based on the Core i3-8100 model, which offers full 4 cores with a frequency of 3.6 GHz for an average of $120. If you spend approximately $45, you can take the Intel Core i3-8300, which has a frequency of only 100 MHz higher and a faster video core. And for IntelCore i3-8350K you will have to pay an average of $185, although a dilemma already arises here, since by adding another $25, you can get a 6-core one.
What is interesting about the Core i3-8350K and why is it so far removed from the Core i3-8100? First of all, its base frequency is 400 MHz higher, that is, at nominal we get 4 instead of 3.6 GHz. But the main thing is that its multiplier is unlocked, and this opens the way for overclocking experiments. In addition, the thermal package has been increased from 65 to 91 W. Secondly, it has 2 MB more L3 cache. And thirdly, we can remember about a more productive video core, if someone is interested in it.
As a result, the Intel Core i3-8350K is designed for fans of overclocking experiments, gamers, traders, scientists and other professionals for whom high performance in single-threaded mode is important, and not the presence of a large number of cores.
Specification
|
IntelCore i3-8350K |
|
|
CPU socket |
|
|
Base frequency, GHz |
|
|
Factor |
|
|
Base system bus frequency, MHz |
|
|
Number of cores/threads |
|
|
L1 cache size, KB |
4 x 32 (data memory) |
|
L2 cache size, KB |
|
|
L3 cache size, MB |
|
|
Microarchitecture |
Intel Coffee Lake |
|
Nominal design power (TDP), W |
|
|
Maximum temperature (T JUNCTION), °С |
|
|
Technical process, nm |
|
|
Support instructions and technologies |
MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, EM64T, VT-x, VT-d, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, Intel SpeedStep, Secure Key, Intel SGX, Intel MPX , Intel OS Guard, Intel Boot Guard, Execute Disable Bit, Intel Identity Protection, Thermal Monitoring, Idle States |
|
Built-in memory controller |
|
|
Memory type |
|
|
Supported frequency, MHz |
|
|
Number of channels |
|
|
Maximum throughput, GB/s |
|
|
Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 |
|
|
Number of execution units (EU) |
|
|
Base / dynamic frequency, MHz |
|
|
Maximum amount of video memory (allocated from RAM), GB |
|
|
Maximum screen resolution at 60 Hz |
|
|
Maximum number of supported displays |
|
|
Supported technologies and APIs |
DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.5, Intel Quick Sync Video, Intel InTru 3D, Intel Clear Video HD, Intel Clear Video |
|
Products webpage |
|
|
Model page |
|
Packaging, delivery and appearance
The processor comes complete with documentation and a sticker. The cooling system will have to be purchased separately, which is quite justified for a model with overclocking potential, but this will additionally increase the cost of the final system.
The FPO code indicates that the CPU was manufactured in the Malaysian factory in week 29 of 2017. On the reverse side there are contact pads for the Socket LGA1151 connector. Let us remind you that processors from the Intel Coffee Lake line are officially compatible only with motherboards based on Intel 300 series chipsets. When using, you can try to run them on models with Intel 100 and 200 series chipsets, but no one gives guarantees of success.
Technical characteristics analysis
When running the stress test, the Intel Core i3-8350K reached the nominal speed of 4 GHz without any problems. Moreover, this frequency is stable and constant, regardless of the number of cores involved. For example, the same Core i5-8400 has a base speed of 2.8 GHz, and the dynamic speed varies depending on the number of cores: 3.8 GHz for six, 3.9 GHz for four and two, 4 GHz for one.
The distribution of L1 and L2 cache memory for the Core i3-8350K and other representatives of this series is similar, but L3 has 8 MB or 2 MB per core instead of 1.5 MB/core for younger models. In addition, 16 associativity channels are used instead of 12, which should also improve performance.
The RAM controller is guaranteed to support DDR4-2400 standard modules in dual-channel mode, although representatives of the Intel Core i5 and Core i7 series can operate with DDR4-2666 memory. If desired, this difference can be made up by overclocking. Moreover, it is unlikely that anyone will buy such a processor with a motherboard on lower chipsets.
And if you decide to use a processor without a video card, then you will have at your disposal an integrated graphics core Intel UHD Graphics 630 with a base frequency of 350 MHz and dynamic overclocking up to 1150 MHz. Unofficial sources indicate the presence of 23 execution units in its structure instead of 24 in older models of the Intel Core i5 and Core i7 series. If you're interested in iGPU gaming performance, it will be slightly better than the Intel Core i3-8100.
Testing
To test the Intel Core i3-8350K processor, as well as its internal and external competitors, the following stands were used:
|
CPU |
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 |
Intel Core i3-8100 / Intel Core i3-8350K / Intel Core i5-8400 |
|
Motherboard |
MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC |
ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-F GAMING |
|
be quiet! Silent Loop 240mm |
be quiet! Dark Rock 4 |
|
|
RAM |
2 x 8 GB DDR4-3400 G.SKILL Sniper X |
|
|
Video card |
Inno3D iChill GeForce GTX 1080 X3 |
|
|
Disk subsystem |
GOODRAM Iridium PRO 240 GB | 960 GB |
|
|
power unit |
Seasonic PRIME 850 W Titanium |
|
|
Thermaltake Core P5 TGE |
||
1. Comparison at nominal parameters. Synthetics
In general, the results for synthetics are quite predictable: the Intel Core i3-8350K outperforms the Intel Core i3-8100 by an average of 9%. In turn, both 6-core processors look better than the tested model.
2. Comparison at nominal parameters. Games
Let's summarize the first part. In the fight between 4-core processors, a natural advantage of 10-20% remained with the Intel Core i3-8350K.
In turn, the Intel Core i5-8400 proves that in nominal mode, gamers are better off paying extra for 6 cores, receiving a performance bonus of 20-24%.
Compared to the Ryzen 5 2600, the 4-core Core i3-8350K still came out the winner, although the difference is within 2-11%. However, in heavy games with an open world and optimization for multi-threading, it is the AMD representative that will look more interesting.
3. Overclocking comparison. Synthetics
Overclocking is always a kind of lottery, but in this case we were lucky, although luck would have been better in a real lottery. The processor really hit the mark, so with good cooling we managed to speed it up to 5 GHz. This is far from the limit, but the figure is beautiful and I didn’t want to tempt fate further. We saw results from our colleagues in the range of 4.5 - 4.8 GHz, and on HWBOT the record is 5.8 GHz.
During the overclocking process, the multiplier was increased to 50, and the CPU Core Voltage Override voltage was raised to 1.36 V in manual mode. At the same time, the frequency of the RAM modules was increased from 2400 to 3466 MHz by activating the XMP profile.
The system worked stably after reboot. The processor temperature did not rise above 77°C with a critical indicator of 100°C.
The remaining Intel representatives in this test lack overclocking potential. We were able to help these “patients” only by raising the RAM frequency to the same 3466 MHz.
In turn, it was possible to accelerate to 4150 MHz thanks to an increase in the multiplier, CPU Core Voltage and CPU NB/SOC Voltage, as well as the choice of the second mode for Loadline Calibration. After this, the system passed the stress test without any problems.
The memory worked at a frequency of 3.4 GHz using the same XMP profile.
What has changed after the overclocking? The gap between the Core i3-8350K and its younger brother increased from 9% to 27%, and the handicap of the Core i5, on the contrary, decreased from 24% to 4%. Even Ryzen 5 felt the high overclocking of the Core i3: its advantage was reduced from 39% to 22%.
4. Overclocking comparison. Games
As a result, without… statistics you can’t figure it out. Overclocking definitely benefited the Intel Core i3-8350K processor: its performance increased by 25-31%.
This allowed him to ride like a roller on his 4-core brother, ahead of him by 19-29%.
The Ryzen 5 2600 could not resist either, which after overclocking does not pose any danger to the Core i3-8350K, because they are separated by 16-37%.
But the Core i5-8400 turned out to be better than even the accelerated 4-core one, but only by 3-7%. Agree, this is already much more pleasant compared to the impressive 24% obtained in nominal mode.
Results
So, in nominal mode, the Core i3-8350K is not of particular interest to the average user: in synthetics it is only 9% better than the Core i3-8100, although in price terms they are separated by about 50%. For gaming, the slightly more expensive 6-core Core i5-8400 is better suited.
The situation changes after a good overclock. In games and synthetics, the advantage of the Core i5 is reduced to an average of 3-7%, but the worse the application uses many threads, the more effective the Core i3-8350K shows itself, and in some cases it will be significantly faster. For example, in the same GIMP, the 4-core processor takes the lead by 37%. Therefore, if you are ready for overclocking, then this model will please you in a number of tasks.
Article read 12572 times
| Subscribe to our channels | |||||