OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i3-7350K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£170PassMark multi-core score:4874N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):60 W

Intel Core i3-7350K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 27 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-7350K
5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

4.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.5

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 85% of processors
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 75%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

4.6

Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 68%
4.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models

4.6

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.0

Average grade

20%

9.4

Popularity

Grades by review (27)
19 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 13 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 80%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i3-7350k
  • intel-core-i3-7350k
  • intel-core-i3-7350k
  • intel-core-i3-7350k
  • intel-core-i3-7350k
intel-core-i3-7350k
intel-core-i3-7350k
intel-core-i3-7350k
intel-core-i3-7350k
intel-core-i3-7350k
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i3-7350K

Based on 10 · 7

Reviewers praise the overclocking and strong single-core speed, but criticise weak multi-core performance and poor value.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-7350K

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

4.6

Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
4.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

6.9
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1151
This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 4.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 74.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,874
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,874 in PassMark, which is lower than 73.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 78.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel HD Graphics 630
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 71.9% of processors and equal to that in 2.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 77% of processors and equal to 0.7% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
60 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 60 W which is higher than that of 67.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
60 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 60 W which is higher than that of 67.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i3-7350K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 18.1% higher sentiment score
    8.5 vs 7.2
  • 14 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (42 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    42 vs 28
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 18.1% higher sentiment score
    8.5 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 14 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (42 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    42 vs 28
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 31.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models

    4.6

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    19 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 13 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.6 vs 6.7
  • 57.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,874 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,874 vs 11,469
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 38.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,225 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,225 vs 5,209
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 31.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models

    4.6

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (27)
    19 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 13 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.6 vs 6.7
  • 5.5% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-7350K has worse value for money than the average processor (6.91 vs 7.3).
    6.91 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    January 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 57.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,874 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,874 vs 11,469
  • 38.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,225 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,225 vs 5,209
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x4.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x4.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 5.4% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,452 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,452 vs 1,535
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 33.3% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (60 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    60 W vs 45 W
  • 33.3% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (60 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    60 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

3.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
27/10/2023
Long-term retest · 10 games and productivity benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is not worth buying in 2023, when cheaper and better options exist for both old and new games.
9.0
Luumi
≈ estimated
11/05/2019
Record attempt · liquid nitrogen overclock
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K proved strong on liquid nitrogen, breaking several records, though the first motherboard died.
5.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
09/02/2017
Full review · benchmarks, overclock and pricing
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is only worth it if you plan to overclock from day one; at this price it's hard to recommend.
5.0
Digital Foundry
≈ estimated
28/01/2017
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and overclocking
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K works if priced right, but a Core i5 K-series chip is the better buy.
7.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
18/01/2017
Hands-on review · overclocking and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is a good choice for gaming and overclocking, but heavy workloads and the high price hold it back.
7.0
Bitwit
≈ estimated
11/01/2017
Comparison with i5 · rendering, gaming and overclocking tests
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is no match for quad-core i5 chips in multithreaded work, but it's a sensible budget pick for single-threaded tasks.
4.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
20/12/2016
Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and overclocking tests
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is not recommended: overclocking brings little benefit for its price.
Brand video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
16/02/2017
Review · Enthusiast overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K suits overclockers with its unlocked multiplier and quick single-thread speed, but it ships without a cooler and needs a Z170 or Z270 board.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
01/02/2017
Lab test · Overclocking chip
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is an unlocked dual-core that overclocks to a stable 5GHz with a good cooler, but its two cores lag four-core Core i5 chips in heavy workloads.
7.7
pcgamer.com
✓ explicit
31/01/2017
Lab test · Gaming overclock
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is a dual-core gaming chip that overclocks well, but trails the Core i5-7600K by over 40% and needs a Z270 board to overclock.
7.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
28/01/2017
Lab test · Overclocking limits
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is very fast in single-threaded tasks and strong in some games, but its two cores and heat limits make it a weaker multi-core chip.
9.0
tweaktown.com
✓ explicit
15/02/2017
Hands-on test · Overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K overclocks easily to about 5.1 GHz, making it a strong gaming chip for enthusiasts, though quad-core chips beat it on multi-threaded work.
9.0
overclock3d.net
≈ estimated
17/01/2017
Hands-on review · Overclocking
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is a solid all-rounder for gaming and everyday tasks, but it draws nearly twice the power when overclocked to 5GHz.
8.0
bit-tech.net
≈ estimated
26/01/2017
Overclocking review · Two-core chip
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K is a strong overclocker that can beat locked Core i5s in lightly threaded tasks, though its two physical cores limit heavy multi-core work.
5.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
25/04/2017
Lab test · Gaming and overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K is a fast two-core chip that stays strong in games and overclocks to 5 GHz, but its multi-core power is too weak for rendering.
6.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
25/01/2017
Lab test · Overclocking
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K runs at 4.2GHz out of the box and reaches 5GHz when overclocked, a big boost, but it has only two cores.
6.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
16/02/2017
Lab test · Overclocking and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K is a dual-core chip that overclocks to 4.9 GHz, making it a strong gaming pick, though it needs a Z170 or Z270 board.
7.0
vonguru.fr
≈ estimated
13/03/2017
Hands-on test · Overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K rewards tinkerers, reaching 4.8 GHz with a good air cooler, though a Core i5 is better for video editing.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
25/08/2017
Lab test · Dual-core chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K offers Hyper-Threading and good efficiency for office work, though it brings little new over Skylake chips.
8.0
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
23/02/2017
Review · Overclocking records
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K reaches 5 GHz easily, suiting overclockers and HWBot record chasers, while everyday users would do better with a quad-core i5.
7.8
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
14/02/2017
Lab test · Overclocking and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K suits gamers and overclockers, reaching 4.9 GHz with a water cooler, though Intel's thermal material limits its headroom.
6.0
razorman.net
≈ estimated
16/04/2017
Lab test · Overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K's easy overclock to 4.8 GHz boosts benchmark scores, though a quad-core i5-6600 makes more sense overall.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
17/02/2017
Lab test · Overclock and power
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-7350K hits 4.9 GHz stably with a good water cooler, but its overclocked power draw is higher than a Core i5-7600K.
7.0
tech.everyeye.it
≈ estimated
03/02/2017
Lab test · Overclock and graphics
Verdict
Intel Core i3-7350K overclocks easily to 5GHz and runs Overwatch well, but its two cores are about half as fast as the i7-4700K at video encoding.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-7350K

  • Exceptional single-threaded performance for its generation, rivaling higher-end i5 and i7 chips in lightly threaded tasks.
  • First Core i3 with an unlocked multiplier, offering significant overclocking headroom, often reaching 4.8 GHz to 5.0 GHz with ease.
  • Includes Hyper-Threading (2 cores/4 threads), making it more versatile than standard dual-core Pentiums of that era.
  • Very power-efficient at stock speeds, with manageable thermals even when overclocked using standard cooling solutions.
  • Ideal for niche high-frequency needs like specialized gaming engines (e.g., Far Cry Primal) or older applications that don't scale well with more cores.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-7350K

  • Poor value proposition; its launch price was too close to locked Core i5 quad-core processors that offered better overall performance.
  • Requires a more expensive Z-series motherboard to utilize its main feature (overclocking), further increasing the total system cost.
  • Does not include a stock cooler, adding another mandatory expense for budget-conscious builders.
  • Limited multi-threaded performance; it often loses to cheaper, locked quad-core CPUs in modern games and productivity tasks like video editing.
  • Faces stiff competition from the Pentium G4560, which offered similar basic features (2C/4T) for a fraction of the price.

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-7350K is a dual-core, four-thread Kaby Lake processor built on a 14nm process with a high base clock frequency of 4.20 GHz and 4 MB of L3 Smart Cache. As the first unlocked i3 in its series, it allows for easy overclocking, often reaching 4.8 GHz to 5.0 GHz, which provides exceptional single-threaded performance and snappy responsiveness in casual gaming and general office tasks. It features a 60W TDP, supports DDR4-2400 memory, and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 630. Main advantages include its high out-of-the-box clock speed and overclocking potential that can rival higher-end chips in lightly threaded workloads. However, notable drawbacks include its lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology, high power consumption when overclocked, and a poor value proposition at launch as it requires an expensive Z-series motherboard and aftermarket cooler, often making it less practical than a native quad-core i5.

Compare Intel Core i3-7350K with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3-7350K and other processors

No results found