Intel Core i3-9350KF Review: Coffee Lake's Stagnant Waters

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,744
It's not mine either. I was pleased by what I saw from the 9400K, but its priced a bit too high to be competitive. It does blow the Ryzen 5 3400G out of the water most of the time, at least, APU performance not withstanding.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
It's not mine either. I was pleased by what I saw from the 9400K, but its priced a bit too high to be competitive. It does blow the Ryzen 5 3400G out of the water most of the time, at least, APU performance not withstanding.
Actually bought a 9100F for the wife -- locked, no GPU -- and tossed in the RX460 I'd had for extra monitors (she got one of those too). Low TDP, low draw, cheap enough and I already had a board and memory that I knew would work, otherwise an AMD solution would have been on the docket. Used a Fractal Design Node 202 with their bundled PSU and a Cryorig C7 and it's silent at idle and almost inaudible under load which fits the goal since it's sitting on her desk right next to her workspace.

And I honestly can't complain about the performance. Price could have been lower, but given how easy these things are to put together (no memory or motherboard pickiness), I can see there being a market for them if price were to be throttled back a bit.
 

wyqtor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
435
Why would anyone buy this over the 9600K/F? I got the latter for the equivalent of 160$ VAT included, in Europe, on Black Friday. I mean, if you want to go even lower than that, why not get a 6-core older-gen Ryzen with a nice cooler included in the price?
 

ochadd

Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
945
4 cores in late 2019 seems silly. Would not recommend 4 cores for anything but office use and then it would be $200-$300 machines used/refurb office machines on Ebay.
 

BoiseTech

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
360
I grabbed an 8350k for a 2nd gaming PC and bundled it with a 1080ti a year ago. It really holds its own. Yeah 4 cores isn't a lot of cores, but this does great with gaming.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,464
4 cores in late 2019 seems silly. Would not recommend 4 cores for anything but office use and then it would be $200-$300 machines used/refurb office machines on Ebay.
Oh god, please don't summon mr 'four cores are enough for everything' to this thread as well for a blue tinted insight.
 

Private_Ops

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
1,858
Oh god, please don't summon mr 'four cores are enough for everything' to this thread as well for a blue tinted insight.

I think 4 cores are fine, based on your usage case and the amount of money you spend. My $60 Ryzen 1300X (was cheaper than the R3 1200 at the time) does everything I need. That obviously doesn't apply to everyone.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,464
I think 4 cores are fine, based on your usage case and the amount of money you spend. My $60 Ryzen 1300X (was cheaper than the R3 1200 at the time) does everything I need. That obviously doesn't apply to everyone.
They sure are fine for an office type user for now and the next few years. But that type of user can get away with older hardware easily - my 2600k does a good enough job for everything but some games and heavy video stuff or similar. And your 1300X would probably beat my 2600k in many scenarios. For the price it's hard to beat it for new hardware.
But definitely not for most demanding gaming or anyone here on [H] who does anything that needs power. Even a 6 core is really only just enough breathing room for a while.
I'm looking forward to an upgrade.
 

ochadd

Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
945
I think 6 cores will be enough for awhile. My guess is 4+ ghz 6 cores will still be happy 3 years from now. Quad cores will be considered what a dual core is today. Anything with more than 8 cores I don't recommend if someone is just after "futureproofing". By the times 8+ cores becomes a standard the motherboard features will justify an upgrade. DDR5, PCIe5, way faster USB, etc. Not to mention guessing IPC gains over the next 4-5 years.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
They sure are fine for an office type user for now and the next few years. But that type of user can get away with older hardware easily - my 2600k does a good enough job for everything but some games and heavy video stuff or similar. And your 1300X would probably beat my 2600k in many scenarios. For the price it's hard to beat it for new hardware.
Main issue is that the boards those run on are getting pretty old (mine died years ago), so if you're building today, the current low-end stuff definitely works for a number of applications to include lower-end gaming.

Obviously for most price points an AMD solution would likely be superior in terms of price / performance where available.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
I think 6 cores will be enough for awhile. My guess is 4+ ghz 6 cores will still be happy 3 years from now. Quad cores will be considered what a dual core is today. Anything with more than 8 cores I don't recommend if someone is just after "futureproofing". By the times 8+ cores becomes a standard the motherboard features will justify an upgrade. DDR5, PCIe5, way faster USB, etc. Not to mention guessing IPC gains over the next 4-5 years.
Six cores represent 'enough' for gaming, eight are the right kind of overkill. After that you're just spending money or you have an actual productivity workload, and there's nothing wrong with either -- it's just not 'recommended' because it's an expense for capability that would likely go unused when say a faster GPU, more memory, more storage, or better peripherals etc. would be more deserving of the budget.
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
Except for the never ending Intel security flaws. Maybe next Gen Intel. Get your security straight first.
 

1_rick

Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
930
a Cryorig C7
How is that? I have a 1600X in a mini ITX board and case, with a Wraith cooler. It does the job but it's not really quiet, and the pitch is one of the more obnoxious ones I've heard. I like the way the C7 looks but I'm not sure it'd be a good fit for that system (never mind how hard they've been to find in the US this year.)
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
How is that? I have a 1600X in a mini ITX board and case, with a Wraith cooler. It does the job but it's not really quiet, and the pitch is one of the more obnoxious ones I've heard. I like the way the C7 looks but I'm not sure it'd be a good fit for that system (never mind how hard they've been to find in the US this year.)
Not as good as the smaller Noctua I replaced it with to cool an 8700K. I bought it because it was spec'd to fit in a Cryorig case and it was cheap; turns out it'll fit in almost everything and it's not a bad cooler, just not the best for the size.
 

1_rick

Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
930
I think 6 cores will be enough for awhile.
Seems pretty likely. I've mentioned this before, but I have a machine at work with 6 cores (Dell 87-8700 non-K) that can handle as many browser tabs as you want, plus a bunch of MS Office apps, Visual Studio, and a MSSQL Server database. I had an i5-4690 before that, and just bringing up the DB server would bring the entire machine to its knees. Sure, there's going to be some specialized uses where 6C12T wouldn't be enough, I'm sure, but for now it really leaves you with a lot of headroom.
 

Lumpus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
313
Everything Intel has released in the last year has been dead on arrival.
Next year, will they feature a Zombie Lake CPU?
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
Everything Intel has released in the last year has been dead on arrival.
Next year, will they feature a Zombie Lake CPU?
They just knocked AMDs mid-range HEDT into irrelevance, and they're three generations ahead in the mobile space.

They don't look very dead to me ;)
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,681
They just knocked AMDs mid-range HEDT into irrelevance, and they're three generations ahead in the mobile space.

They don't look very dead to me ;)
I don't think he said the company was dead. Maybe I read it wrong or did not comprehend it.
 

Arcygenical

Will Watercool for Crack
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,914
Oh god, please don't summon mr 'four cores are enough for everything' to this thread as well for a blue tinted insight.
I get along just fine, using 4 cores, two of which are virtual, at ultrawide noless.... for daily driving . Ram and NVME are far more important for your porn and AliExpress addictions :p.

Miss having a desktop though...
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,615
If only that were the context...
the stretch, was the context about irrelevance, not much of Intel offerings are putting any AMD part into said "irrelevance" per GN sales on local numbers in the US AMD was outselling by 93% so I guess this i3 may be a better low end than a 3400G based on old tech and designed for all in one sytems, but ultimately I don't think "irrelevance" is the right word to use.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
the stretch, was the context about irrelevance, not much of Intel offerings are putting any AMD part into said "irrelevance" per GN sales on local numbers in the US AMD was outselling by 93% so I guess this i3 may be a better low end than a 3400G based on old tech and designed for all in one sytems, but ultimately I don't think "irrelevance" is the right word to use.
That's not the context either.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,744
They just knocked AMDs mid-range HEDT into irrelevance, and they're three generations ahead in the mobile space.

They don't look very dead to me ;)
Except, this isn't true. While Intel's Core i9 10980XE is more powerful than AMD's Threadripper 2920X and 2950X CPU's, those are already displaced by AMD's own Ryzen 9 39xx CPU's. If you want to compare Intel's Core i9 10980XE to AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X that's fine. You still won't find a decisive victory in Intel's favor here either. Intel's CPU is more expensive and consumes more power. It has to be overclocked considerably to seriously dethrone the 3950X on top of it all. This requires a good custom loop to achieve those clocks as well. Again, the cost is heat and power consumption. Platform costs go up as well.

Now, if you want to compare the new Threadripper mid-range, then that just leaves two more options. The 2970WX and 2990WX CPU's. These are priced under the cost of the 10980XE or right around it. Intel's Core i9 10980XE doesn't gain definitive ground here either. It loses against both of these in several multithreaded applications. It doesn't have the Threadripper 2000 series' weaknesses, but it also doesn't match them in areas where they are stronger. Both X399 and X299 are dead end platforms. So, you can't really go there with it either. Both are more similar than not with a slight nod to AMD for delivering more for less. You don't need a BS VROC license key to fully leverage X399 either.

Look, I like the 10980XE, but it hardly knocks AMD's mid-range HEDT offerings into irrelevance. it barely edges out the Ryzen 9 3950X and it comes no where near the performance of the Threadripper 3960X or 3970X CPU's. You have to compare it to AMD's second generation Threadrippers and even then, it's not a clear cut win either due to Intel's pricing or its performance vs. AMD.

Intel is far from dead but, right now the table's getting run on them in the mainstream and HEDT markets. Intel either needs a misstep from AMD or it needs to get back in the game by getting its 10nm / 7nm processes on track. Intel is probably at least six months to a year out from having anything of note anywhere other than in the mobile market.
 

NickM

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
364
Except, this isn't true. While Intel's Core i9 10980XE is more powerful than AMD's Threadripper 2920X and 2950X CPU's, those are already displaced by AMD's own Ryzen 9 39xx CPU's. If you want to compare Intel's Core i9 10980XE to AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X that's fine. You still won't find a decisive victory in Intel's favor here either. Intel's CPU is more expensive and consumes more power. It has to be overclocked considerably to seriously dethrone the 3950X on top of it all. This requires a good custom loop to achieve those clocks as well. Again, the cost is heat and power consumption. Platform costs go up as well.

Now, if you want to compare the new Threadripper mid-range, then that just leaves two more options. The 2970WX and 2990WX CPU's. These are priced under the cost of the 10980XE or right around it. Intel's Core i9 10980XE doesn't gain definitive ground here either. It loses against both of these in several multithreaded applications. It doesn't have the Threadripper 2000 series' weaknesses, but it also doesn't match them in areas where they are stronger. Both X399 and X299 are dead end platforms. So, you can't really go there with it either. Both are more similar than not with a slight nod to AMD for delivering more for less. You don't need a BS VROC license key to fully leverage X399 either.

Look, I like the 10980XE, but it hardly knocks AMD's mid-range HEDT offerings into irrelevance. it barely edges out the Ryzen 9 3950X and it comes no where near the performance of the Threadripper 3960X or 3970X CPU's. You have to compare it to AMD's second generation Threadrippers and even then, it's not a clear cut win either due to Intel's pricing or its performance vs. AMD.

Intel is far from dead but, right now the table's getting run on them in the mainstream and HEDT markets. Intel either needs a misstep from AMD or it needs to get back in the game by getting its 10nm / 7nm processes on track. Intel is probably at least six months to a year out from having anything of note anywhere other than in the mobile market.
But, but, Intel has moar clokz!
 

lightsout

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
1,134
I grabbed an 8350k for a 2nd gaming PC and bundled it with a 1080ti a year ago. It really holds its own. Yeah 4 cores isn't a lot of cores, but this does great with gaming.
Last time I tried that with a 1080ti and BFV and it struggled at 4k. I had settings turned down but i think i was doing like like 30-45 fps and it felt terrible. Swapped in my 2600x and it was a totally different experience. More like 45-60 but felt good. I think the 1% lows must have been really bad with intel.

Granted this was with a lower clocked 4570s, but still fora game that likes thread 4 core is just not happening. I know they need to have different product segments, but please stop artificially taking away HT. That practice needs to die.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
Now, if you want to compare the new Threadripper mid-range, then that just leaves two more options. The 2970WX and 2990WX CPU's. These are priced under the cost of the 10980XE or right around it. Intel's Core i9 10980XE doesn't gain definitive ground here either. It loses against both of these in several multithreaded applications. It doesn't have the Threadripper 2000 series' weaknesses, but it also doesn't match them in areas where they are stronger
If you need HEDT, AMD has raised the price of entry for an all-around CPU with Zen 2, and Intel has filled that gap. Of course, I'm mentioning this only because the trolls have come to town ;).

Last time I tried that with a 1080ti and BFV and it struggled at 4k. I had settings turned down but i think i was doing like like 30-45 fps and it felt terrible. Swapped in my 2600x and it was a totally different experience. More like 45-60 but felt good. I think the 1% lows must have been really bad with intel.
The 8350K will be great for a great many games, but the latest BF releases are not in that class, at least not when playing online. You want at least six good cores or as you suspect, frametimes start taking a dump, and that really disturbs your flow!
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,744
If you need HEDT, AMD has raised the price of entry for an all-around CPU with Zen 2, and Intel has filled that gap. Of course, I'm mentioning this only because the trolls have come to town ;).
Except, the 2970WX and 2990WX CPU's are still available.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
The same way that Zen 2 is -- AMD used NUMA on Zen and Zen+ TR CPUs, and that screws with desktop software.

That's about 99% of the fault of the software stack, but at the same time, these were are the first consumer-focused NUMA CPUs, and that's just not a problem desktop software has really ever had to deal with. AMD side-stepped the problem completely by unifying the memory with Ryzen 3000, and those rock all around -- they're just starting at ~US$2,000 for the platform while Intel has an HEDT platform that's also great for all-around usage (no NUMA) at a much lower price of entry.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,744
What he means is, that while very good at multithreadeed workloads to a degree, the first and second generation Threadripper CPU's have a number of performance issues with normal desktop software. This includes games.

The same way that Zen 2 is -- AMD used NUMA on Zen and Zen+ TR CPUs, and that screws with desktop software.

That's about 99% of the fault of the software stack, but at the same time, these were are the first consumer-focused NUMA CPUs, and that's just not a problem desktop software has really ever had to deal with. AMD side-stepped the problem completely by unifying the memory with Ryzen 3000, and those rock all around -- they're just starting at ~US$2,000 for the platform while Intel has an HEDT platform that's also great for all-around usage (no NUMA) at a much lower price of entry.
This comes down to do things. Applications being impacted by the NUMA implementation and the latency penalties incurred by crossing CCX complexes. Applications outside of the server world are largely incapable of dealing with NUMA and the Windows scheduler itself is partly to blame for not necessarily keeping data spanning CCX's complexes restricted to specific cores that would minimize this effect. In the Ryzen 3000 series, the NUMA implementation has been removed entirely. The issue with data crossing CCX complexes has mostly been eliminated by having all data routed through a centralized I/O die. However, the CCX issue has been replaced by application data having to move from one CCD to the other in dual CCD processors like the 3900X and 3950X. To combat this problem, the Ryzen 3000 series employs a crap ton of L3 cache. While costly, it's obviously worth it.

I won't say the design doesn't have potential weaknesses, but the 3000 series (mainstream and HEDT) lack the weaknesses that the previous first and second generation processors had with desktop applications and gaming. Indeed, I've done the tests and the 2nd generation Threadripper CPU's suck at things like gaming. Intel does have a place in the mid-range of the HEDT market, but the gap it lives in basically only leaves room for the 10980XE and there are huge caveats to using it.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,528
Exactly, thanks for bringing your usual eloquence to the discussion Dan.

If AMD had produced 12- and 16-core Threadripper 3000 parts using only two CCDs instead of four, they quite likely could have knocked Intel's HEDT offerings out completely. I do understand that the 12- and 16-core Ryzen 3000 CPUs would be competitors, but generally speaking I don't see that as much of an issue outside of paper comparisons -- if you need HEDT, you know you need HEDT.

In any case, the point was to show that while AMD has made great inroads into the enthusiast market, they still don't have all of the bases fully covered, and further, that the Intel parts available are still worthy of consideration in the context of expected use cases.
 
Top