Although it's essentially a 7700K with two additional cores and an additional L3 cache, the Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K from Intel has proven to be an improvement over its predecessor in Kaby Lake to make it new a few days ago To crown game king.
However, we are aware that it may not be an attractive upgrade for existing 7700K owners, not to mention that it is a bit expensive at $ 360. Since the offer is currently very limited, buying one this year can be challenging, even if you're interested.
That's why we bought the cheaper Core i3-8100 and 8350K to see what they have to offer.
For $ 180, the Core i3-8350K is almost a revised Core i5-7600K: both are 14nm quad cores at ~ 4GHz, but the 8350K is 25% cheaper and should be thanks to a larger 8MB L3 -Cache be faster. In short, the 8350K essentially gives you a little more for a little less.
The Core i3-8100 costs a lot more than $ 120. Although locked at 3.6 GHz, it should be comparable to the Core i5-7400 or 7500, with the same 6 MB L3 cache, but about 40% cheaper.
While the price of the Core i3-8350K is comparable to the Ryzen 5 1500X, the 8100 competes against the Ryzen 3 series. The only disadvantage that the locked 8100 part is currently experiencing is the complete lack of inexpensive motherboards. Z370 boards currently start at $ 120, while B350 boards are available for just $ 60, or about half the price.
We are also interested to see how the 8350K is compared to the Core i5-8400. The 8400 with six cores only costs $ 10 more and I think I would rather have the two additional cores for such a small price increase than the ability to overclock, but let's see what the benchmarks have to say …
Storage and application performance
First, let's check the memory bandwidth performance. These DDR4 two-channel memory controllers are suitable for a memory bandwidth of 31 to 39 GB / s when using 3200 memory.
Since the Core i3-8100 is a locked part, you should ideally use it on a cheaper motherboard that the currently offered Z370 models offer. Currently, the options are limited, so that anyone who buys an eighth-generation core processor must pair it with a Z370 card and thus unlock the memory frequencies. On upcoming B360 cards, for example, you are limited to DDR4-2400. So I decided to test the i3-8100 with both DDR4-2400 and 3200 memory.
Here we see that when using DDR4-2400 memory, the 8100 is limited to a memory bandwidth of 28.6 GB / s. Increasing memory speed to 3200 increases bandwidth by 25%, which undoubtedly improves performance in a number of games and applications. In the meantime, the unlocked and higher clocked 8350K with DDR4-3200 memory was tested and 36.8 GB / s bandwidth was managed.
When we switch to Cinebench, we see that the Core i3-8100 can outperform the Ryzen 3 1300X in both single and multi-threaded tests. On this basis, it will be a tough journey for the greatly reduced Ryzen series. The 8350K based on frequency should only be about 10% faster than the 8100, but here we see it with an 18% advantage. The only possible explanation is that the 33% increase in L3 cache capacity helps him in this test.
Regardless of whether the Ryzen 5 1500X smokes the single thread score, it is 16% slower for the multithreaded workload. Based on that, I expect the 8350K to punish the 1500X in most games, but lagging behind in most productivity tests. I should note that the 8350K only marginally outperforms the Core i5-7600K, while being 23% slower than the Core i5-8400.
Before we get to that, let's take a quick look at PCMark 10 results. The 8350K actually manages to outperform the Core i5-8400 here, while the 8100 beats both the Ryzen 3 1300X and the R5 1500X. The 8100 was 5% faster when using DDR4-3200 memory, unlike 2400, so not a big margin, but still a small boost.
If we move on to the Excel Monte Carlo simulation, we find that the Core i3-8350K is actually much slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X, actually 24% slower. It was also 9% slower than the 7600K and 19% slower than the 8400.
The Core i3-8100 is luckier because it was 18% faster than the Ryzen 3 1300X and 26% faster than the Core i3-7350K. It's also worth noting that the faster DDR4-3200 memory didn't offer the 8100 an advantage in this application.
Next we have the VeraCrypt results and here the Ryzen 3 1300X has actually retired before the Core i3-8100, albeit with a slight lead. The Core i3-8350K was roughly the same as the 7600K, but was 32% slower than the Core i5-8400. That said, it was at least 40% slower than the Ryzen 5 1500X, so the 8350K is hosed down a bit in this application.
If we jump to the 7-Zip data, we see that the 8350K just can't live with the R5 1500X, even though it was only 4% slower for the compression workload, when decompressed it was 25%. The 8350K is also completely destroyed by Intel's own 8400, since the Core i5 CPU was 35% faster. The Core i3-8100 looks much better and can handle the Ryzen 3 series without any major problems.