i3-8100 vs i3-8350k, does the 8350k max out on load?

[swaggycreeper11]

I am going to build a new pc and i am thinking of bying an i3-8350k. I first thought of bying an i3-8100, but I prefer 8350k, because it has base 0.4ghz more, can be overclocked up to 5ghz and has +2mb cache memory. My friend told me that i should not buy i3 8350k because it is unlocked, which results in the cpu's cores maxing out on load. So, my questions are:
1) Do unlocked cores max out on load much easier than the locked ones?
2) Can the pc motherboard or/and its ram affect cpu's load?
3) Does the i3-8340k actually max out on load easier than the i3-8100?
4) Is Cryorig H7 (cooler) good enough for the i3-8350k

PC specs:
gpu : Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
Motherboard: Z370 aorus gaming 5 (rev 1.0)
PSU : Corsair CX series CX650
HDD : Western Digital Blue 3.5" (7200 rpm)
Ram : HyperX Fury Black 8GB 2666 Ghz
Case : CoolerMaster MasterBox 5 (Window)

 

[Barty1884]

1. No. Clock for clock, they'd be utilized in the same manner.
2. RAM or GPU certainly can, depending on the workload. For example, try to game with an 8350K and a GT710, and the 8350K will never likely be close to maxed out - commonly referred to as a 'bottleneck'.
3. No. If anything, it has a little added headroom vs the 8100. Depending on the workload though - and paired with a 1060, I'd expect you should be able to max out the 8350K's cores while gaming.
4. Yes. The H7 is a solid cooler, and more than capable of running/overclocking the 8350K.

FWIW, "maxing" out cores, is not a bad thing necessarily. The most perfectly optimized system would run 100% on CPU & 100% on GPU for your desiired workloards, with some system memory to spare. In a realistic sense though, that's near impossible to accomplish. Having either the CPU or GPU hit 100%, while the other is really close (>90%) would be a good result.

Also note, it's not a guarantee that the 8350K will hit 5GHz without issue. Still a bit of the silicon lottery.
Supposedly it was the top ~60% of 8350K's that were hitting 5GHz.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/7ae6f1/silicon_lotterys_i38350k_overclocking_averages/

Some people needed >1.4V, others could do it nearer 1.3V.

 

[swaggycreeper11]

Thank you a lot! I was 90% going to buy the 8350k, but now I am 100% sure that this cpu is the one i should buy.BTW do you mean that cpus try to load its cores close to 100% in order to provide the best performace possible, while actually being able to handle more programmes?

 

[Barty1884]

Not 100% sure how to phrase it into the way you look at it.

A CPU (or GPU) will use all resources available, IF the program/game requires it.

 

[swaggycreeper11]

By maxing out on load, i don't mean overclocking or anything like that, i am talking about having all 4 cores being 100% used , which results in your cpu being unable to handle more things.

 

[Barty1884]

Well, yes. Your CPU cores will hit 100%, if the workload you're asking it to do can utilize it or requires it.

That's just an efficient use of the processing power available. Obviously, if you have more tasks running ,then resources are already in use, so there's less available for a game.

If you want a true 'multi-tasking' machine (with a 1060, I assume gaming + other stuff), perhaps you want to look at something a little stronger for these uses than an 8350K. Something like an i5-8400 at 6c/6t might be a better place to look.

 

[swaggycreeper11]

OK, i understand that , but i want to know if the i3-8350k tends to max out on load more than the i3-8100. (sorry for asking that many questions but i want to ensure that i will buy a good pc that is good enough for what i will be using it for. Thank you a lot for answering all those questions, it helped a lot.)

 

[Barty1884]

Depends on what you do with it.
Ultimately, it has a higher base clock tat the 8100 so has a little more headroom out of the box.

Depending on the workload though - say CPU intensive gaming (even CS:GO or similar), there's going to be very little difference between the two.

 

[mdd1963]

the i3-8300 is now available as well, or so I've read...

also worth considering, as at least it includes a cooler...

 

[swaggycreeper11]

i3 8100 and i3 8300 were two of my options. I just prefer an overclockable cpu, because i want to be a little bit more future proof.

 

[Barty1884]

"Futureproof" is a myth, generally.

BUT, for requirements in the relatively near future, you're going to be benefit from a non-overclockable 6 core CPU, than you are an overclocked 4c CPU.

Just my $.02

 

[swaggycreeper11]

i5-8400 is really good for stuff that needs more than 4 cores (streaming, editing etc.), but i've heard that it is not that good at gaming. I've also heard that i5 8th gen CPUs are generally over estimated. That's why i want to buy an i3.

 

[volkgren]

i5-8400 is superior to the i3-8350K in gaming.

The only time the 8350K is faster than the i5-8400 is when the game is optimized for fewer threads, and runs at high refresh rate anyway. The difference in the two is minimal.

When the i5-8400 is faster is when the game uses multi-threading; and the difference between the two is greater than when it's the other way around.

That's just what I gathered while watching the benchmark reviews of the two.

*See slightly faster single core speed (even though not all benchmarks are overclocked); vs much faster multi-core speed.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-8350K/3939vs3935

 

[swaggycreeper11]

The i5-8400 is non-overclockable, and I can't afford an i5-8600k. I guess I can just buy the i5-8400 while having a z370 motherboard. But i5 CPUs are mostly used for editing etc.

 

[Barty1884]

No, an i5-8400 is a great gaming chip.

Titles that rely mainly on single core performance/clock speed may favour an overclocked i3-8350K, but modern titles will favour the i5-8400.

There's no need to invest in a Z370 board for an i5-8400 - B360 or H370 will work just fine for you there.


:lol: no, i5's are not mostly used for editing. Anybody with serious multi-tasking/multi-thread requirements looks to an i7, Ryzen5 or Ryzen7 etc.
Sure, some people do edit on i5's, it's not that they can't do it... there's just better options.
Historically the quad-core i5's were the "gaming" chip of choice.
Games have moved on a bit and can utilize >4 cores (modern titles, anyway).... and the i5 lineup has moved along too.

An i5 is still a great gaming chip. You should have a better experience with it, than with any i3.

 

[swaggycreeper11]

I would buy i5-8400 but i think that it is too good for what i will be using my pc for.

 

[volkgren]

But i5 CPUs are mostly used for editing etc.

Nah, that's not entirely true. A lot of editors probably use an i5 or i7; but so do gamers.

A lot of games that use multi-threading will max out the load on a quad-core (4C/4T) whether it's at 3.6GHz or 5.0GHz.

Unlocked CPUs have nothing to do with cores maxing out on load.

If you just wanted to experience overclocking and can't afford the 8600K then the 8350K would be okay. On the same note, if you wanted to save money and go with the 8100 that would be good too. But the i5-8400 offers more than the 8350K as far as gaming goes.

 

[swaggycreeper11]

TBH, I do also think that 6 cores will be neccessary in a few years. But the problem is that currently I do not play games like LOL and Fortnite, which do not require a good pc. Apparently, i5-8400 is better than i3 8340k only in stuff that require more than 4 cores. I will also buy a really good motherboard, in order to be able to change my CPU into sth better if i need to.

 

[Barty1884]

What do you play, currently? LoL and Fortnite are (relatively) easy to run.

Better to buy something fit for purpose, with a bit of an eye on the future, than outright overkill for titles you play.

A 4c/4t CPU is still going to be able to play modern titles - I'm not saying it won't, and neither the i3-8100 or 8350K are poor choices on a budget
But titles are starting to take advantage of >4 cores (although generally not >6), hence the i5 as the obvious choice.

Whether a title can truly use >4 cores or not, you will frequently see between 1% and 0.1% lows with a stronger CPU.

An i7-8700K consistently benchmarks as the 'best' CPU for gaming - but you won't notice much difference unless paired with really high end GPUs between it and an i5-8400*.

*There will be some variances, just not a huge difference.

 

[volkgren]

I was trying to post this earlier but was having connection issues.

Either way you will walk away with a pretty good gaming CPU. But, what if I told you the better gaming CPU is the one that has the best lows. In other words the one with the highest, low frame rate?


Exampls:

i5-8400
min: 59fps
max: 81fps

i3-8350K
min:55fps
max 84fps

Which is the better gaming CPU?

I know even looking at the lows, they both are pretty similar in actual benchmarks. But I still believe the i5-8400 is better and will only continue to get better in that respect.

At the end of the day, it's up to you and what you want. You can always sell it and buy what you want later. Luckily the 9th-gen CPUs are supposed to be compatible with the 300 series motherboards.

 

[swaggycreeper11]

I understand that the fact that i5-8400 has 6 cores makes it better at games which take advantage of >4 cores, but it has less base clock speed, which makes it worse in games that don't use more than 4 cores. That means that I should buy the i5-8400 only whether i am going to play games which require more than 4 cores and video editing etc.This CPU wasn't even one of my options in the start. The question that I still want to be answered is whether unlocked cores tend to reach to 100% easier than the locked ones (By 100%, I am talking about the cores being fully used, not being overclocked)

 

[poopflinger]

The 8100 will reach 100% usage on cores more quickly than the 8350k since the 8350k has more headroom in terms of clock speed. Therefore, tasks that will utilize 100% of the CPU will run "faster" on the 8350k, thereby making the 8350k run at 100% for a shorter time interval than the 8100 given the same exact task. The 8100 will take longer at 100% CPU usage to complete the same task as the 8350k since the 8350k has higher clock speeds. I hope that answers this question. Either way, the 8400 is better than either of these processors for games.

 

[Barty1884]

I understand that the fact that i5-8400 has 6 cores makes it better at games which take advantage of >4 cores, but it has less base clock speed, which makes it worse in games that don't use more than 4 cores.

Barely, before overclocking anyway.

The i3-8350K is 4GHz, no boost.
https://ark.intel.com/products/126689/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-Processor-8M-Cache-4-00-GHz-

The i5-8400 is 2.8-4GHz, depending on cores being loaded.
https://ark.intel.com/products/126687/Intel-Core-i5-8400-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4-00-GHz-

The 2.8GHz is the 'base' frequency but turbo will take a 4 core load to 3.9GHz, and a 6 core load to 3.8GHz.
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8400-cpu,review-34073.html

So, assuming a game *only* uses 4cores, you're comparing 3.9GHz (with a slightly larger cache) to 4.0GHz on the i3.
Not going to be any noticeable difference from a 100MHz swing in clocks - AND the i5 has the added 2 cores to call into action if/when required.

 

[swaggycreeper11]

I dont to use turbo because i dont think it is that safe. I will just buy the i3 8350k.

 

[swaggycreeper11]

Also, the reason why my friend thinks that unlocked cores max out on load easier than the locked ones is because the unlocked ones have a little percentage of them already used in order to be able to overclock them (a part of the cores are basically useless when not overclocked).