Haswell i3-4340 review

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Don't see why most desktop users would get this when the FX-6300 costs $10 less and is faster on most tasks.

 

[escrow4]

Don't see why most desktop users would get this when the FX-6300 costs $10 less and is faster on most tasks.

Have to add in a GPU. Given all that might as well go for a 6800K.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Have to add in a GPU. Given all that might as well go for a 6800K.

6800K is overpriced. It's merely a slightly higher-clocked 5800K. Not worth the $30 difference when you can just bump the multiplier on the 5800K and get the same performance.

Most people that build their own PCs will use a discrete card, anyway, and if you're getting a i3 it means you don't care much about IGP performance given that the 5800K/6700/6800K are faster there. If you care about CPU performance instead, then you'd go for the FX-6300/6350. And if you want a jack-of-all-trades (CPU, IGP performance, low power consumption) then the A10-6700 makes the most sense. The only thing I can see the i3 making sense for is an HTPC.

Edit:
And BTW, if you only need basic a basic IGP you can get a 760G board with an HD 3000 or 3200.

 

[Hulk]

I really want to see a good head-to-head review of a dual core hyperthreaded Ivy vs. Haswell at the same clock running highly multithreaded code, like video editing. It seems as though Haswell's wider back end and other improvements should allow better utilization of hyperthreading than Ivy. There "should" be more unused resources available for the logical cores.

 

[ngasset]

I really want to see a good head-to-head review of a dual core hyperthreaded Ivy vs. Haswell at the same clock running highly multithreaded code, like video editing. It seems as though Haswell's wider back end and other improvements should allow better utilization of hyperthreading than Ivy. There "should" be more unused resources available for the logical cores.

Here is what you search ... well in french!
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/901-3/performances-applicatives.html

Anyway, there are very few reviews of Haswell i3 ... Why nobody is reviewing these cpu ????? I found it very strange! Also few shop have them!

 

[frozentundra123456]

Have to add in a GPU. Given all that might as well go for a 6800K.

For gaming, the FX6300 makes sense, considering that you need a discrete card for any kind of decent gaming experience.

Otherwise, I would go with a pentium for basic tasks, or even a celeron. The 6800k is overpriced IMO, and has more gpu than needed for everyday use but still borderline for gaming.

 

[Red Hawk]

No real performance improvement and more power hungry than the Ivy Bridge i3s? Wasn't Haswell supposed to be more power efficient than the Ivy Bridge? I guess it could be that all the power-efficient CPUs are going to mobile, and Intel is selling all the ones that didn't make the cut to the desktop channel.

That die would be pretty useless for a laptop, given what Intel wants to do, although I can't imagine why Intel wouldn't put out binned igp-disabled parts for relatively cheap prices instead.

It was called the 2550K.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No real performance improvement and more power hungry than the Ivy Bridge i3s? Wasn't Haswell supposed to be more power efficient than the Ivy Bridge? I guess it could be that all the power-efficient CPUs are going to mobile, and Intel is selling all the ones that didn't make the cut to the desktop channel.



It was called the 2550K.

Well, if you look at that link posted by ngasset, it does look like a considerable improvement from an ivy i3 in several tests. Still not sure that makes it a good choice compared to an i5 on the higher end or a pentium or FX6300 on the cheaper side though.

 

[Hulk]

Here is what you search ... well in french!
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/901-3/performances-applicatives.html

Anyway, there are very few reviews of Haswell i3 ... Why nobody is reviewing these cpu ????? I found it very strange! Also few shop have them!

Nice find! Thanks. Looks like in well threaded apps the Haswell duals with HT may well show a decent performance increase over Ivy.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Nice find! Thanks. Looks like in well threaded apps the Haswell duals with HT may well show a decent performance increase over Ivy.

I too would like to see a direct comparison at the same clocks. The Haswell architecture is wider then Ivy, so perhaps HT has more resources to play with.

 

[ngasset]

Not considering the price, those new i3 seem to show more improvement than i5 and i7, notably on the iGPU side. Let's welcome the generalization of crapdvence Intel iGPU to i3 ...
i3 do not have turbo, but keep they two core at the max frequency of i5, and two thread benchmark are very good. So you may not loose anything in light multitasking.

They seem perfect for htpc.

Intel priced them as a10 which is too expensive considering you can have an i5-4570 for only 30$ more (which include all the bell and whistles execpt ht). Also what is worrying is that next gen of intel CPU may not be compatible with the current current 1150 socket.

 

[SPBHM]

I too would like to see a direct comparison at the same clocks. The Haswell architecture is wider then Ivy, so perhaps HT has more resources to play with.

the hardware.fr test shows a clock vs clock comparison...

4130, 3240 and 2130 all work at 3.4

the relative performance (to a PII 955)
was 105.9% for Haswell, 95.6% for Ivy and 92.1% for Sandy, I think it' the usual gain for Haswell...


but haswell gains int terms of perf per watt are nothing or negative I think.

 

[crashtech]

Odd that the gains made in low power consumption did not translate to full power desktop usage. Does anyone know how much the more powerful IGP is contributing to power draw?

 

[BSim500]

Odd that the gains made in low power consumption did not translate to full power desktop usage. Does anyone know how much the more powerful IGP is contributing to power draw?

It's probably a combination of the iGPU + widely unpopular Haswell "feature" of the new IVR's arbitrarily adding +0.1v when loaded with anything with an AVX instruction sending load temps through the roof (as seen on quad-cores)...

As for how much is the iGPU, we probably won't know until a "P" version comes out. The i5-3470 was officially rated 77w, and the i5-3350P was 69w, so that's 8w used by the much slower Ivy Bridge's iGPU by Intel's estimate. I reckon Haswell's iGPU is probably 10-14w iGPU loaded.

Either way, overall efficiency (performance divided by watts) has actually managed to regress almost all the way back to Sandy Bridge - wiping out the gains achieved on the SB->IB 32nm->22nm die shrink even with no overclocking at all at a relatively slow 3.6GHz...

From French review:-
"Consumption increases significantly against our Core i3-3240 Ivy Bridge, with the socket 7 watts more on one thread and 13 watts at 100% load (4 threads), increasing the TDP of 10 watts between two generations... Logical energy efficiency is down sharply against the i3 Ivy Bridge. So the gain is only slight against a i3 Sandy Bridge 32nm..."

Russian & Chinese reviews concur with similar +10-15w load figures and almost no improvement in idle figures (despite lower clocked 800MHz Haswell idle state (vs 1600MHz of SB/IB) showing more improvement on the i5). With its price only $20 cheaper than a budget Ivy i5 (high-end), and almost double that of an IB Pentium (budget work-box) with 80% the speed, unless there's a price-cut, it's turned out to be a bit of a white elephant, IMHO...

 

[Insert_Nickname]

the hardware.fr test shows a clock vs clock comparison...

4130, 3240 and 2130 all work at 3.4

the relative performance (to a PII 955)
was 105.9% for Haswell, 95.6% for Ivy and 92.1% for Sandy, I think it' the usual gain for Haswell...


but haswell gains int terms of perf per watt are nothing or negative I think.

You're quite right. I must have misunderstood something along the way. I also think you're right about Haswells performance per watt.

Either way, overall efficiency (performance divided by watts) has actually managed to regress almost all the way back to Sandy Bridge - wiping out the gains achieved on the SB->IB 32nm->22nm die shrink even with no overclocking at all at a relatively slow 3.6GHz...

Hrm, bigger core and bigger IGP on the same process. I think its what one could expect. That doesn't soften the blow of disappointment though... :|

 

[taisingera]

Same thing happened with the M variants of haswell. It went from 35 to 37W, not as bad of an increase compared to the desktop cpus, but still higher than last generation. I think a lot of people are overestimating battery life for haswell laptops, Now how they got the U parts down from 17w to 15w I don't know, but they could be lying about it, just like that SDP Intel released for Baytrail and Haswell Y.

I bought a i3 4330 because with a motherboard, a quad would still be too much for my budget. I don't game, so I could have gone with a Pentium but decided on the i3 since I upgrade only every 3-5 years. Plus I got a $25 discount from Newegg so the i3 4330 really only cost me $125, of course I had to go for an H87 mobo vs a cheaper B85 mobo in order to meet the $250 minimum. If I was on SB/IB I probably would not have upgraded, but I was coming from a i3 530.

Only thing that sucks is Newegg had a warehouse malfunction, and it is taking longer to get the gear.

 

[crashtech]

Regardless of the complaints, the newest i3s have about the highest IPC out there, and it can be argued that such high performance in lightly threaded tasks is worth some price premium.

 

[Pilum]

Regardless of the complaints, the newest i3s have about the highest IPC out there, and it can be argued that such high performance in lightly threaded tasks is worth some price premium.

Yes, that seems to be the reason for the pricing. Of course you could turbo-OC the Ivy Bridge i5s, which tilted price/performance away from the i3s, but that's gone with Haswell.

If you look at the Haswell lineup, the cheapest i5 to reach 3.6 GHz on turbo is the i5-4570 which costs $192, compared to $149 for the 3.6 GHz i3-4340 ($43/29% difference). If you take the next-lower i5, the i5-4440, you get 3.3. GHz max. turbo for $182, while the i3-4130 for $122 runs at 3.4 GHz ($60/49% difference).

So for most normal users the i3s are actually an excellent deal.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Yes, that seems to be the reason for the pricing. Of course you could turbo-OC the Ivy Bridge i5s, which tilted price/performance away from the i3s, but that's gone with Haswell.

If you look at the Haswell lineup, the cheapest i5 to reach 3.6 GHz on turbo is the i5-4570 which costs $192, compared to $149 for the 3.6 GHz i3-4340 ($43/29% difference). If you take the next-lower i5, the i5-4440, you get 3.3. GHz max. turbo for $182, while the i3-4130 for $122 runs at 3.4 GHz ($60/49% difference).

So for most normal users the i3s are actually an excellent deal.

Please tell me who are the "normal" users that require anything more than a $50 Celeron. The ones that runs benchmarks day in day out?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yes, that seems to be the reason for the pricing. Of course you could turbo-OC the Ivy Bridge i5s, which tilted price/performance away from the i3s, but that's gone with Haswell.

If you look at the Haswell lineup, the cheapest i5 to reach 3.6 GHz on turbo is the i5-4570 which costs $192, compared to $149 for the 3.6 GHz i3-4340 ($43/29% difference). If you take the next-lower i5, the i5-4440, you get 3.3. GHz max. turbo for $182, while the i3-4130 for $122 runs at 3.4 GHz ($60/49% difference).

So for most normal users the i3s are actually an excellent deal.

Possibly for a small niche that needs maximum single or dual threaded performance, but not multithreaded workloads. Seems like a small niche to me though, as a much cheaper pentium is adequate for the vast majority of general users, while a haswell quad offers almost the same lightly threaded performance at a small increase in price, especially considered relative to the cost of the entire system. If you are willing to give up a little clockspeed for better multithreading, the lowest clocked i5 is only 33.00 more than the most expensive i3.

 

[rootheday3]

Same thing happened with the M variants of haswell. It went from 35 to 37W, not as bad of an increase compared to the desktop cpus, but still higher than last generation.

Remember that Haswell cpu includes the VRM which was present on the motherboard previously. That takes some additional power because it has conversion losses. That is, for a IVB CPU drawing 35W, the VRM on the motherboard was probably drawing 37-38W; 2-3W converted to heat in the VRM due to voltage conversion losses. Now that conversion happens inside the package and the TDP must be adjusted to account for it. No net difference in power used at a platform level. In fact, due to reduced signaling latencies and fewer variables re motherboard components, Haswell should be able to be faster at switching voltages, allowing it to drop to lower power states faster.

I think a lot of people are overestimating battery life for haswell laptops, Now how they got the U parts down from 17w to 15w. I don't know, but they could be lying about it, just like that SDP Intel released for Baytrail and Haswell Y.

No trolling not required. Lots of Haswell laptop reviews are out and they all show marked increases in battery life - like 2-3 hours longer on web browsing, 1-2 hours longer on video playback. Note that battery life has to do with getting to low power states quickly and staying there as much as possible and has almost nothing to do with TDP.

 

[parablooper]

Thanks guys, the thing about the poor price range (too close to i5, not that much better than Pentium) really struck me. I was gonna get an i3-4340 to build a non-gaming rig for one of my relatives, but now I figure the i5-4430 is a better choice, since it's just $30 extra for two more physical cores.

 

[escrow4]

Thanks guys, the thing about the poor price range (too close to i5, not that much better than Pentium) really struck me. I was gonna get an i3-4340 to build a non-gaming rig for one of my relatives, but now I figure the i5-4430 is a better choice, since it's just $30 extra for two more physical cores.

Or just a G1610. I use one close to every day, perfectly suitable for standard basic tasks. For like $45.

 

[crashtech]

The funny thing is that the 4430 will be significantly slower than the 4340 in the kind of lightly threaded tasks that relatives usually do. But it probably won't be noticed. You could probably disable two of the quad's cores and never have it be noticed, either.

 

[BSim500]

The funny thing is that the 4430 will be significantly slower than the 4340 in the kind of lightly threaded tasks that relatives usually do. But it probably won't be noticed. You could probably disable two of the quad's cores and never have it be noticed, either.

True, but that's primarily due to the Haswell's nerfed i5 Turbo Boost (no +400MHz 4-bins "limited overclock" on Z boards vs Ivy & Sandy which limits the 4430 to 3.2GHz instead of 3.6GHz), but the difference between an i3-4340 (3.6GHz fixed) and an i5-3470 (4.0GHz max Turbo OC) is barely $35 and vs an i5-3350P (3.7GHz max Turbo OC) is literally just $20 (for budget gamers with a discrete GFX card).

i3's are great, but Haswell i3's definitely need a $20-$30 "haircut" from current prices. There's just $20 difference between them and Ivy i5's and almost $80 difference between them and Ivy Pentium's (yes I'm comparing to Ivy's since that's what they're replacing). And that's still excluding they run 10-15w hotter than Ivy i3's under load which is an issue for HTPC builders using slimline coolers in slimline cases with very low 600 RPM fans looking for the absolute lowest TDP dual-core. If I were building a HTPC today, a $15 cheaper i3-3240 still has a more desirable 15% higher performance/watt ratio, and doesn't come with Haswell's "overly clever" IVR's which "helpfully" arbitrarily adds 0.1v to the CPU under load whenever it feels like it (the last thing you want when building a silent rig)...

i3's at $125-$130 make sense. An i3 at almost $160 is stuck between a rock (too expensive for budget gaming vs low-end i5's - especially with more multi-threaded gaming coming out with the new consoles) and a hard place (costs far, far more than a Pentium for a basic "work box" (ie, MS Office + web browser + e-mail + audio/video playback + light flash gaming + solitare & minesweeper, etc).

Not bashing them for the sake of it - (I have fond memories of my i3-530 OC'd to 4.2GHz punching well above its weight), but the +20% increase in heat & +10% increase in cost vs Ivy Bridge i3's seems to be "two steps forward, 1.5x steps back" to me.