Intel Core i3-9350KF Review: Coffee Lake's Stagnant Waters

Too little, too late?

(Image credit: © Shutterstock)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The Core i3-9350K/F processors are most noteworthy for their high price tag and limited feature set. Enthusiasts are far better served by competing AMD alternatives.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Turbo Boost 2.0

  • +

    Overclocking headroom

  • +

    Gaming performance with discrete GPU

  • +

    Lightly-threaded performance

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    Requires Z-Series motherboard for overclocking

  • -

    No included cooler

  • -

    Gen-on-Gen price increase

  • -

    PCIe 3.0

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Intel's Core i3-9350KF marks yet another iterative update to the company's Core series, but it isn't enough. AMD has stolen the overall performance leadership crown from Intel with its Zen 2 architecture, paired with the 7nm process in its Ryzen 9 and Threadripper 3000 series, but the damage also spans down to Intel's high-volume budget offerings. In fact, Intel is often far less competitive in these mainstream segments. 

To shore up its defenses in the high-volume budget arena, Intel infused the Core i3-9350KF with its Turbo Boost 2.0 feature, marking the first time the company has offered the feature on the range of processors. But that's it. 

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • g-unit1111
    Is there any point in buying a 4/4 CPU on a platform that is becoming increasingly outdated anymore? Even for an office machine, a Ryzen 3400G is a more attractive CPU at that price.
    Reply
  • Co BIY
    I would like to see some comment from the reviewers on the "snappiness" of the machines when powered by the various processors when doing various routine tasks. Do any of the benchmarks capture the "drive responsiveness" of the machine.

    I imagine that most those buying the lower end processors will be doing routine computer work like web browsing, word processing ect... I see that as the perfect use case for a very fast low core count processor. Feels fast in normal home/office use at a low cost.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    Seeing recent reviews from GN, tech deals, and Hardware Unboxed, I am convinced 4 core/4 thread gaming, is essentially dead, at this point, unless you only play old titles that don't need more than 2-4 cores. The six core Ryzen 5's still keep going, where the i3 and i5 intels run out of steam, due to insufficient resources, being limited to 4 and 6 core without hyperthreading.
    Reply
  • g-unit1111
    logainofhades said:
    Seeing recent reviews from GN, tech deals, and Hardware Unboxed, I am convinced 4 core/4 thread gaming, is essentially dead, at this point, unless you only play old titles that don't need more than 2-4 cores. The six core Ryzen 5's still keep going, where the i3 and i5 intels run out of steam, due to insufficient resources, being limited to 4 and 6 core without hyperthreading.

    Yeah especially when you can get a 2nd gen Ryzen CPU for ridiculously cheap right now. Even the 3rd gen CPUs are still a relative bargain compared to their Intel counterparts.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    logainofhades said:
    Seeing recent reviews from GN, tech deals, and Hardware Unboxed, I am convinced 4 core/4 thread gaming, is essentially dead, at this point, unless you only play old titles that don't need more than 2-4 cores. The six core Ryzen 5's still keep going, where the i3 and i5 intels run out of steam, due to insufficient resources, being limited to 4 and 6 core without hyperthreading.

    I've been under the assumption that games are being optimized for 8 threads, because of the consoles.
    I'll need to look into if 4c/8t outperforms 6/6 at gaming to see if that's true, even though 4 hyperthreaded cores are usually going to be worse than 6 physical cores at overall number crunching.
    I wonder how console-comparable pre-ryzen 8-weak-core AMD processors hold up with modern games compared to 4 fast cores.
    Reply
  • ScrewySqrl
    Giroro said:
    I've been under the assumption that games are being optimized for 8 threads, because of the consoles.
    I'll need to look into if 4c/8t outperforms 6/6 at gaming to see if that's true, even though 4 hyperthreaded cores are usually going to be worse than 6 physical cores at overall number crunching.
    I wonder how console-comparable pre-ryzen 8-weak-core AMD processors hold up with modern games compared to 4 fast cores.


    Anecdotally, I'm seeing a lot of "FX-8350 or better" in the 'recommended' listing of $50-60 games on Steam, so I'm guessing those older 8 cores are working better now that things are optimized for 8 cores.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    Giroro said:
    I've been under the assumption that games are being optimized for 8 threads, because of the consoles.
    I'll need to look into if 4c/8t outperforms 6/6 at gaming to see if that's true, even though 4 hyperthreaded cores are usually going to be worse than 6 physical cores at overall number crunching.
    I wonder how console-comparable pre-ryzen 8-weak-core AMD processors hold up with modern games compared to 4 fast cores.

    Games are starting to use more threads, because of Ryzen, really. Hence Intel finally pushing core counts higher, across all product lines. I would expect a 6c/6t to do better, than a 4c/8, but still suffer from frametime issues, a 6c/12t CPU like an intel 8700k, or a Ryzen 5 3600, would not.
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    Just how many times can the 7600K be recycled, bumped up 100 MHz, given a new name, and called 'new'....

    This processor should be $59 , and a questionable purchase even then, but, it is NEVER worth $180+....(Intel, trim it's price by 60-70% , pronto..!)
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    The review actually discusses the advantages of PCI-e 4.0? Honestly, with no GPUs yet available using it, and, I rather doubt anyone pondering this rig or an R5-1600 or less is pondering the latest NVME 4.0 drive on an X570 onslaught at 50-70% increased NVME storage cost but often an actual .1% longer 50 GB file transfer vs. the 970 EVO in real world testing.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    mdd1963 said:
    The review actually discusses the advantages of PCI-e 4.0? Honestly, with no GPUs yet available using it, and, I rather doubt anyone pondering this rig or an R5-1600 or less is pondering the latest NVME 4.0 drive on an X570 onslaught at 50-70% increased NVME storage cost but often an actual .1% longer 50 GB file transfer vs. the 970 EVO in real world testing.

    While the are not taking advantage of the bandwidth, AMD's NAVI cards are PCI-E 4.0. X570 is not compatible with 1st gen Ryzen. Only a 3rd gen CPU, with an x570, gets you PCI-E 4.0. I do agree that PCI-E 4.0, is not really necessary, for the average user, at this time.
    Reply