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 i3-9350KF review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£130PassMark multi-core score:7602N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.6 GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):91 W

Intel Core i3-9350KF Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-9350KF
5.5/10

Overall score

Score
5.5/ 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 90% 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%

?

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

â–¼Worse than 90% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
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 70% of models
Score components

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

4.9

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 70%
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 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.8

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
4 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, 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-i3-9350kf
  • intel-core-i3-9350kf
  • intel-core-i3-9350kf
intel-core-i3-9350kf
intel-core-i3-9350kf
intel-core-i3-9350kf
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 i3-9350KF

Based on 3 · 1

Reviewers mostly appreciate its overclocking headroom, while few other aspects get much attention.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-9350KF

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 70% of models
Score components:

60%

4.0

Performance

18%

4.9

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
4.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.5

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

6.8
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
Z390, Z370, Q370, H370, B365, B360, H310
This processor supports Z390, Z370, Q370, H370, B365, B360, H310 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 57.3% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% 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
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% of processors.
Show more
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
4.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.6 GHz which is higher than that of 59.9% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x4 GHz which is higher than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,602
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,602 in PassMark, which is lower than 60.5% 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
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
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)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
8 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 8 seconds which is longer than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.9% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i3-9350KF 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
  • 4.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake Refresh 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
  • 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.
  • 4.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake Refresh 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
  • 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.
  • 70.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,537 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,537 vs 5,209
  • 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 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    4 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, 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
  • 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.
  • 45.2% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,537 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,537 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 33.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,602 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,602 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 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 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    4 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, 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
  • 6.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-9350KF has worse value for money than the average processor (6.83 vs 7.3).
    6.83 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 70.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,537 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,537 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
  • 45.2% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,537 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,537 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 33.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,602 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,602 vs 11,469
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 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
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 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
  • 20 seconds shorter turbo duration
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (8 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    8 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

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

9.0
Techo Mode
≈ estimated
28/06/2023
Overclocking test · benchmarks against i7-9700K
Verdict
Intel Core i3-9350KF is good value for 1080p gaming, and once overclocked it keeps pace with an i7.
Not graded
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

4.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
18/12/2019
Lab test · Overclocking and rivals
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-9350KF is hard to recommend because AMD's Ryzen chips offer more cores and threads, even though it overclocks well to 5.1 GHz.
4.0
bit-tech.net
≈ estimated
21/05/2019
Lab review · Full benchmark suite
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-9350KF is hard to recommend, since overclocking easily matches its boost gains and it adds no extra cores over the 8350K.
7.6
chip.de
✓ explicit
16/10/2019
Benchmark test · Chip without graphics
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-9350KF suits undemanding computing, but its 91W heat rating and missing built-in graphics hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-9350KF

  • High single-threaded performance due to the addition of Turbo Boost 2.0 (up to 4.6 GHz)
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for significant overclocking, with some users reaching 5.0 GHz or higher
  • Strong gaming performance in titles that prioritize high clock speeds over core count
  • Supports ECC memory, which is rare for consumer-grade i3 processors
  • Improved base clock speeds (4.0 GHz) compared to previous generations

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-9350KF

  • Lacks integrated graphics (noted by the 'F' suffix), requiring a discrete GPU for any display output
  • Limited to 4 cores and 4 threads with no Hyper-Threading, causing it to struggle in modern multi-threaded applications and heavy multitasking
  • Poor value proposition compared to AMD Ryzen alternatives (e.g., Ryzen 5 3600) which offered more cores/threads for a similar price
  • Does not include a stock cooler in the retail box, increasing the total build cost
  • High 91W TDP for an i3, requiring decent cooling especially when overclocked

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-9350KF is a 9th Generation quad-core desktop processor built on the 14nm Coffee Lake Refresh architecture, featuring 4 cores, 4 threads, and an 8MB L3 Smart Cache. It operates at a high base clock speed of 4.0 GHz with a maximum turbo boost frequency of 4.6 GHz, and is designed for the LGA 1151 socket on Intel 300-series motherboards. Main pros include its unlocked multiplier for overclocking potential, support for ECC memory, and strong single-core performance suitable for entry-level gaming and VR. However, its main cons are the lack of integrated graphics (requiring a discrete GPU), the absence of Hyper-Threading, a relatively high 91W TDP that necessitates robust cooling, and the fact that it does not include a thermal solution in the box.

Compare Intel Core i3-9350KF 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 i3-9350KF and other processors

No results found