Intel i3 7350K (4.2Ghz) GeekBench Benchmarks Leaked Allegedly Outperforms an i5 6400 & 4670K CPUs

[Shahnewaz]

2 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

91W is basically the TDP of a 6700K. I don't get how it could be quite so high and what would make the .4 GHz speed increase over an i3 6300 make it require so much more power. 

 

Also, i3s don't have Turbo Boost.

 

Gonna call B.S. on this article cuz A. WCCF and B. Those numbers just look way too off.

Good point, didn't realize it was consuming as much power as its 4-core variants.

Also, it's Intel TDP numbers, so they aren't exactly all that accurate.

[STRMfrmXMN]

5 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

Good point, didn't realize it was consuming as much power as its 4-core variants.

Also, it's Intel TDP numbers, so they aren't exactly all that accurate.

An i3 using as much power as an i7 or quite a fair bit more than an i5 doesn't make sense. I just don't think it's real, this is something common about WCCF.

[Wolther]

Not surprised about Single core. The price jump is.. ew. 

Seems like they (possibly) increased dual core efficiency? 

[JaMGeR]

8 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

4670k@4,5GHz:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/1143487

My 3770@4,2GHz has almost the same score lol.. something wrong with haswell or what?

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/1145460

 

edit: just realize yours its a i5 lol.

[RagnarokDel]

An I3 better then a 4 years old I5 chip? Shocking! I'm pretty sure my 4670k was better then my I7 920 I had previously...

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

An i3 using as much power as an i7 or quite a fair bit more than an i5 doesn't make sense. I just don't think it's real, this is something common about WCCF.

But TDP rating isn't power consumption. Not just because of the difference between TDP and power consumption, let's assume is the same thing for the sake of the argument, but especially because of the difference between TDP ratings and what CPUs actually consume/generate. For example, all AM3+ CPUs are either 95W or 125W (let's forget the 220s), which would imply 6x3.9GHz=8x4.0GHz, or 4x4.0GHz=8x3.30GHz. In practice it's never the case, but I guess they factor in intended OC headroom or even binning to lump SKUs in 2 or 3 TDP ratings.

 

Or maybe this just confirms that they are teleporting it straight from LGA775 days  

[STRMfrmXMN]

15 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

But TDP rating isn't power consumption. Not just because of the difference between TDP and power consumption, let's assume is the same thing for the sake of the argument, but especially because of the difference between TDP ratings and what CPUs actually consume/generate. For example, all AM3+ CPUs are either 95W or 125W (let's forget the 220s), which would imply 6x3.9GHz=8x4.0GHz, or 4x4.0GHz=8x3.30GHz. In practice it's never the case, but I guess they factor in intended OC headroom or even binning to lump SKUs in 2 or 3 TDP ratings.

 

Or maybe this just confirms that they are teleporting it straight from LGA775 days  

I was using the 91W TDP as a point of reference for me justifying why I thought this article was bogus, and that's because of the way too high TDP for an i3 (yes I know that Thermal Design Power is not power consumption) and because they mention Turbo Boosting to 4.2 GHz, something i3s have never been capable of doing because Turbo Boost was always reserved for i5s and above.

[aisle9]

$180 CPU and a $100 Z270 mobo for two cores (w/HT) or $200 for a CPU and $40 for an H210 (?) mobo for a true quad that's going to stomp on the unlocked i3 in multicore performance anyway?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

20 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

I was using the 91W TDP as a point of reference for me justifying why I thought this article was bogus, and that's because of the way too high TDP for an i3 (yes I know that Thermal Design Power is not power consumption) and because they mention Turbo Boosting to 4.2 GHz, something i3s have never been capable of doing because Turbo Boost was always reserved for i5s and above.

It won't be me the one to defend the reliability of the source  

The boost clock was mentioned in earlier rumors as well, though:

But time will tell. Until then, I stick to it being an unlocked E8400 

[Thony]

Nvm I read "i7". Unlocked i3 woop woop. If pricing is right then we have a winner (But this is intel we talk about....)

[unsubscribed]

12 hours ago, Scruffy90 said:

Glad i'm still on Ivy Bridge. With my mobo slowly dying, may be time to consider an upgrade, assuming that the i5 and i7 have similar gains.

i5 and i5 will be max 10% faster if not less compared to previous generation aka 6700k. Not much of a jump. But if you are upgrading from older gen to this then yes, it is worth it.

[Urishima]

5 hours ago, typographie said:

What's up with all the salt graphics? I personally wouldn't find it terribly surprising nor rage-inducing that an i3 at 4.2 GHz and a marginal IPC bump does about as well as a locked 3.3 GHz i5.

I am sure that he meant to signify that one should take this rumor with some amount of salt, as in: be skeptical.

 

Not the 'U MAD BRO?!' kind of salty that is all the rage these days.

[patrickjp93]

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

But time will tell. Until then, I stick to it being an unlocked E8400 

That's a BIT old lol.

[Castdeath97]

6 hours ago, typographie said:

What's up with all the salt graphics?

It's WCCF Tech, you need the proper disclaimers! 

[Simon771]

i7 7700k will be released in Q1 2017?

Or are my informations wrong?

[Bouzoo]

7 hours ago, typographie said:

What's up with all the salt graphics? I personally wouldn't find it terribly surprising nor rage-inducing that an i3 at 4.2 GHz and a marginal IPC bump does about as well as a locked 3.3 GHz i5.

7 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

Gonna call B.S. on this article cuz A. WCCF and B. Those numbers just look way too off.

 

Pretty much B.S. yes All of their numbers are way off, they are pretty much the same, or really close to tests on 32-bit windows. All other results on Geekbench show are way ahead of the i3. 

 

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?utf8=✓&q=i5+6400

 

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=i5+4670k

[Bouzoo]

4 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

But time will tell. Until then, I stick to it being an unlocked E8400 

You know, upgrading every 8-9 years might not be a bad idea. 

[pit5000]

i have a spare 2600k sitting around, how would that compare?

[it_dont_work]

6 minutes ago, pit5000 said:

i have a spare 2600k sitting around, how would that compare?

Around 25% slower in singlecore, and slightly faster multicore. Give or take some salt.

[System Error Message]

regarding TDP, dont forget it has integrated graphics. Also intel puts higher TDP for overclockable CPUs.

[sof006]

Nice, i'd still buy at least a quad core however. I'm more likely to side with a i7 however due to video rendering etc and certain games taking advantage of multi threading. 

 

Still waiting for the new AMD processors.

[Sauron]

Too bad geekbench is garbage, as clearly shown by the fact the multithreaded score for the i3 is double that of single core (which makes sense since it's a dual core) but in the case of the i5 it's less than 3 times the single core score despite the i5 having 4 cores. Also, the 4670k has significantly higher single core results compared to the 6400, but is only barely faster in the multithreaded test - what gives?

9 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

91W is basically the TDP of a 6700K. I don't get how it could be quite so high and what would make the .4 GHz speed increase over an i3 6300 make it require so much more power. 

 

Also, i3s don't have Turbo Boost.

 

Gonna call B.S. on this article cuz A. WCCF and B. Those numbers just look way too off.

It's possible (possible, not likely) that the TDP was given some margin to accomodate for high overclocking.

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, Wolther said:

Not surprised about Single core. The price jump is.. ew. 

Seems like they (possibly) increased dual core efficiency? 

No, quite simply geekbench is a very bad benchmarking tool, especially for x86.

[Urishima]

2 hours ago, Castdeath97 said:

It's WCCF Tech, you need the proper disclaimers! 

WCCF? I think we need even more salt.

[Energycore]

15 hours ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Fml, allow me to sweeten this thread, its too darn salty as of now!

 

That's sugar, by the way.