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 i3-8350K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£150PassMark multi-core score:6926N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):91 W

Intel Core i3-8350K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 12 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-8350K
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 87% of models
Score components

40%

4.8

Technical score

25%

4.8

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 87% 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%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 75%
4.8

Technical score

Technical score
4.8/ 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 65% of models
Score components

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.9

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 65%
4.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.8/ 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 77% of models

4.8

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

8.8

Popularity

Grades by review (12)
9 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 3 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 77%
?

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-i3-8350k
  • intel-core-i3-8350k
  • intel-core-i3-8350k
  • intel-core-i3-8350k
  • intel-core-i3-8350k
intel-core-i3-8350k
intel-core-i3-8350k
intel-core-i3-8350k
intel-core-i3-8350k
intel-core-i3-8350k
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 i3-8350K

Based on 7 · 3

Reviewers love its overclocking and gaming performance, but complain it needs a separate cooler and a high-end motherboard to shine.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-8350K

Technical score
Technical score
4.8/ 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 65% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.9

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

4.8
Reviews score
4.8
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%

9.7

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
Intel 300 Series
This processor supports Intel 300 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 55% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
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
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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
4x 4.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x4.0 GHz which is higher than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
6,926
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 6,926 in PassMark, which is lower than 63.9% 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
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% 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
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel UHD Graphics 630
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
23
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 23 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51% of processors and equal to 0.5% 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
VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 79.5% of processors and equal to 3.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
91 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 91 W which is higher than that of 86.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
91 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 91 W which is higher than that of 87.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
91 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 91 W which is higher than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
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 i3-8350K 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
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 12 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (40 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    40 vs 28
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 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.
  • 12 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (40 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    40 vs 28
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x4.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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.
  • 70.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,517 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,517 vs 5,209
  • 28.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.8/ 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 77% of models

    4.8

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (12)
    9 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    4.8 vs 6.7
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 39.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,926 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,926 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 2.02x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (91 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    91 W vs 45 W
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 28.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.8/ 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 77% of models

    4.8

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (12)
    9 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    4.8 vs 6.7
  • 5.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-8350K has worse value for money than the average processor (6.89 vs 7.3).
    6.89 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).
    October 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 70.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,517 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,517 vs 5,209
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 39.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,926 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,926 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 3.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,458 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,458 vs 2,558
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 20% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    37.5 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (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)).
    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.
  • 2.02x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (91 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    91 W vs 45 W
  • 2.02x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (91 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    91 W vs 45 W
  • 42.2% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (91 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    91 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

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

7.0
Proceu Tech
≈ estimated
27/01/2022
Retrospective review · gaming benchmarks and value check
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8350K is still a decent pick for esports and older games at the right price, but it is clearly dated.
9.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
19/03/2018
Overclocking review · temperature and clock speed tests
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8350K is a strong gaming chip once overclocked, with temperatures kept reasonable.
6.0
Tech Showdown
≈ estimated
02/11/2017
Head-to-head comparison · stock and overclocked benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8350K is only worth it for overclockers; at stock speeds, the 8400 is the safer buy.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

4.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
30/10/2017
Benchmark review · Gaming and rendering
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8350K is a strong gaming chip, especially when overclocked to 4.8GHz, but it lags in heavy rendering and in Ashes of the Singularity.
7.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
16/11/2017
Full review · Quad-core overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8350K has strong gaming and high overclocking headroom, but it needs a Z-Series board, and the six-core i5-8400 is better for most users.
6.0
hexus.net
≈ estimated
23/02/2018
Review · Mainstream desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8350K is a quad-core chip that's easy to overclock, but it needs a Z370 motherboard and its graphics can't handle serious gaming.
7.0
hardwareinside.de
✓ explicit
19/10/2017
Short test · Overclocking and power
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8350K overclocks easily to a stable 4.9GHz on air, suiting users who need strong speed per MHz and no more than four cores.
8.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
15/11/2017
Lab test · Overclocking and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8350K is a quad-core that overclocks to about 5GHz and is strong in games, but it needs a Z370 board and a separate cooler.
8.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
23/10/2017
Benchmark review · Overclocking focus
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8350K suits overclockers, matching the Core i5-7600K on average, but the six-core Core i5-8400 is the faster chip overall.
6.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
20/11/2017
Benchmark review · Gaming and overclocking
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8350K is a strong quad-core for gaming and overclocking, but it needs a Z370 board, and the Core i5-8400 suits most users better.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-8350K

  • High overclocking potential with many users reaching 4.8 GHz to 5.0 GHz stable
  • Excellent single-core performance, making it competitive for high-frame-rate gaming in its price class
  • Significant upgrade over previous i3 generations, offering four physical cores for the first time
  • Strong performance-per-dollar value for users who specifically need high clock speeds over more cores
  • Supports ECC memory, which is unusual for a consumer-grade i3 processor

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-8350K

  • Requires a more expensive Z-series motherboard to utilize its main feature: overclocking
  • Does not include a bundled thermal solution, adding to the total system cost
  • Poor value compared to the Core i5-8400, which offers six cores for a similar price
  • Lacks Turbo Boost technology, meaning it stays at its base 4.0 GHz unless manually overclocked
  • High power consumption and heat output when pushed to high clock speeds, requiring substantial cooling
  • Four threads can become a bottleneck in modern AAA games or heavily multi-threaded workloads compared to Ryzen alternatives

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-8350K is an 8th Generation Coffee Lake processor featuring 4 physical cores and 4 threads with a high base clock speed of 4.0 GHz and 8 MB of L3 Smart Cache. Built on a 14nm process with a 91W TDP, it utilizes the LGA 1151 socket and includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630. A major pro is its unlocked multiplier, allowing for significant overclocking potential—often reaching 5.0 GHz or higher—which delivers class-leading single-core performance and makes it highly competitive in gaming compared to previous-generation i5 models. However, its main cons include the lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology, the absence of a bundled stock cooler in the box, and a price point that sits very close to 6-core alternatives like the i5-8400, which offers better multi-threaded value for most users.

Compare Intel Core i3-8350K 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 i3-8350K and other processors

No results found