Core i3 — Intel — WikiChip
Core i3 is family of low-end performance processors introduced by Intel since 2010, following the retirement of the Core 2 family.
Intel first announced the retirement of the Core 2 in mid-2009, but the Core i3 was not officially launched until January 04, 2010. Core i3 microprocessors are considered performance processors, but generally sit on the low side of the scale. They sit below the Core i5 and well below the Core i7 families, making it fairly decent for multitasking and somewhat OK budget gaming.
Intel has traditionally been grouping Core i3 processors into generations based on the microarchitecture they are based on with 1st generation being based on Westmere in 32 nm with the latest chips based on Skylake manufactured using a 14 nm process.
The Arrandale-based i3 processors are dual-core processors. These processors had the FSB replaced with Direct Media Interface 1.0. These processors use Socket-G1. They all have the following features:
| i3-330E | $ 177. € 159.30 |
7 January 2010 | 2 | 4 | 35 W
35,000 mW |
2,133.33 MHz
2.133 GHz |
8 GiB
8,192 MiB |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | 500 MHz
0.5 GHz |
667 MHz
0.667 GHz |
| i3-330M | 7 January 2010 | 2 | 4 | 35 W
35,000 mW |
2,133.33 MHz
2.133 GHz |
8 GiB
8,192 MiB |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | 500 MHz
0.5 GHz |
667 MHz
0.667 GHz |
|
| i3-350M | 7 January 2010 | 2 | 4 | 35 W
35,000 mW |
2,266.66 MHz
2.267 GHz |
8 GiB
8,192 MiB |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | 500 MHz
0.5 GHz |
667 MHz
0.667 GHz |
|
| i3-370M | 22 June 2010 | 2 | 4 | 35 W
35,000 mW |
2,399.99 MHz
2.4 GHz |
8 GiB
8,192 MiB |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | 500 MHz
0.5 GHz |
667 MHz
0.667 GHz |
|
| i3-380M | 26 September 2010 | 2 | 4 | 35 W
35,000 mW |
2,533.33 MHz
2.533 GHz |
8 GiB
8,192 MiB |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | 500 MHz
0.5 GHz |
667 MHz
0.667 GHz |
|
| i3-390M | 11 January 2011 | 2 | 4 | 35 W
35,000 mW |
2,666.66 MHz
2.667 GHz |
8 GiB
8,192 MiB |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | 500 MHz
0.5 GHz |
667 MHz
0.667 GHz |
|
| i3-330UM | 24 May 2010 | 2 | 4 | 18 W
18,000 mW |
1,199.99 MHz
1.2 GHz |
8 GiB
8,192 MiB |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | 166 MHz
0.166 GHz |
500 MHz
0.5 GHz |
|
| i3-380UM | 1 October 2010 | 2 | 4 | 18 W
18,000 mW |
1,333.33 MHz
1.333 GHz |
8 GiB
8,192 MiB |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | 166 MHz
0.166 GHz |
500 MHz
0.5 GHz |
035 kW 
00781 TiB 
0241 hp 2nd Generation mobile Core i3 processors were based on Sandy Bridge, an entirely new microarchitecture that provided higher performance at higher power efficiency along with many other improvements and changes. Those new models also integrate a higher performance GPU onto the same die as the microprocessor as well as introduced a new SIMD AVX instruction set extension as well as a number of new technologies. It’s also worth pointing out that the ulta-low voltage models are now 1 watt of TDP less than previous generation while having higher clock speed. All Core i3 has the following features in common:
| i3-2308M | February 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2. 1 GHz
2,100 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
✘ | |
| i3-2310M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
February 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2.1 GHz
2,100 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2312M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
June 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2. 1 GHz
2,100 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2328M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
September 2012 | 2 | 4 | 2.2 GHz
2,200 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2330M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
June 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2. 2 GHz
2,200 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2332M | September 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2.2 GHz
2,200 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
✘ | |
| i3-2348M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
January 2013 | 2 | 4 | 2.3 GHz
2,300 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,150 MHz
1.15 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2350M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
October 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2.3 GHz
2,300 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,150 MHz
1.15 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2370M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
January 2012 | 2 | 4 | 2.4 GHz
2,400 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,150 MHz
1.15 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2390M | 2012 | 2 | 4 | 2.5 GHz
2,500 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,150 MHz
1.15 GHz |
✘ | |
| i3-2393M | $ 50.00
€ 45.00 |
14 August 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2.5 GHz
2,500 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2394M | $ 50.00
€ 45.00 |
October 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2.6 GHz
2,600 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2395M | 2012 | 2 | 4 | 2.6 GHz
2,600 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
✘ | |
| i3-2350LM | $ 225. 00
€ 202.50 |
October 2011 | 2 | 4 | 1.6 GHz
1,600 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,150 MHz
1.15 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2355M | 2012 | 2 | 4 | 1.3 GHz
1,300 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
✘ | |
| i3-2357M | $ 250.00
€ 225.00 |
June 2011 | 2 | 4 | 1. 3 GHz
1,300 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
950 MHz
0.95 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2365M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
September 2012 | 2 | 4 | 1.4 GHz
1,400 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2367M | $ 250.00
€ 225.00 |
October 2011 | 2 | 4 | 1. 4 GHz
1,400 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2370LM | 2012 | 2 | 4 | 1.7 GHz
1,700 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,150 MHz
1.15 GHz |
✘ | |
| i3-2375M | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
January 2013 | 2 | 4 | 1.5 GHz
1,500 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2377M | $ 250.00
€ 225.00 |
September 2012 | 2 | 4 | 1.5 GHz
1,500 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2397M | 2012 | 2 | 4 | 1.5 GHz
1,500 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
✘ | |
| i3-2310E | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
February 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2.1 GHz
2,100 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,050 MHz
1.05 GHz |
✔ |
| i3-2330E | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
June 2011 | 2 | 4 | 2.2 GHz
2,200 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 650 MHz
0.65 GHz |
1,050 MHz
1.05 GHz |
✘ |
| i3-2340UE | $ 250.00
€ 225.00 |
June 2011 | 2 | 4 | 1.3 GHz
1,300 MHz |
17 W
17,000 mW |
16 GiB
16,384 MiB |
HD Graphics 3000 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
800 MHz
0.8 GHz |
✔ |
0469 hp 
0469 hp 
0156 TiB 
0228 hp 
0156 TiB 
0156 TiB Intel released the desktop Skylake-based Low-end processors in late 2015. All desktop Core i3 models utilize the LGA-1151 socket which is used for most of the Skylake desktop lineup.
| i3-6098P | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0. |
27 December 2015 | 2 | 4 | 3.6 GHz
3,600 MHz |
54 W
54,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 510 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.05 GHz
1,050 MHz |
| i3-6100 | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
27 September 2015 | 2 | 4 | 3.7 GHz
3,700 MHz |
51 W
51,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 530 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.05 GHz
1,050 MHz |
| i3-6100T | $ 117. 00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
27 September 2015 | 2 | 4 | 3.2 GHz
3,200 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 530 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
0.95 GHz
950 MHz |
| i3-6120T | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 530 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
0.95 GHz
950 MHz |
|||
| i3-6300 | $ 147.00
€ 132.30 |
14 nm
0. |
27 September 2015 | 2 | 4 | 3.8 GHz
3,800 MHz |
51 W
51,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 530 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.15 GHz
1,150 MHz |
| i3-6300T | $ 147.00
€ 132.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
27 September 2015 | 2 | 4 | 3.3 GHz
3,300 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 530 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
0.95 GHz
950 MHz |
| i3-6320 | $ 157. 00
€ 141.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
27 September 2015 | 2 | 4 | 3.9 GHz
3,900 MHz |
51 W
51,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 530 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.15 GHz
1,150 MHz |
| i3-6320T | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 530 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
0.95 GHz
950 MHz |
014 μm 
014 μm Mobile Skylake-based Low-end processors were introduced in late 2015.
Mobile Core i3 uses FCLGA-1515/FCLGA-1356 sockets which incorporate the chipset as well as the microprocessor itself in the same package.
7th generation, modes which was introduced by Intel in early 2017, are manufactured on Intel’s improved 14 nm process «14nm+» which allowed for higher clock speeds at similar voltage levels. As such most models enjoy 100-300 MHz clock increase over their previous generation for the same price (Note that clock-for-clock there is no performance improvement over 6th generation Core i3). Overall very few minor features were introduced in the 7th Generation Core i3 models, including improved GPU support for 4K playback via native hardware acceleration. All models incorporate a 600-series integrated graphics processor which is largely identical to their 6th generation 500-series counterparts. Note that 7th generation Core i3 models have dropped support for ECC memory which were used in many small-business and home servers.
Desktop 7th generation Core i3 processors were launched in January of 2017..jpg)
While their clock-for-clock performance is identical to their 6th generation counterparts, they are clocked higher which allowed for a slight performance increase. All desktop models use Socket LGA-1151 and have the following common features:
| i3-7100 | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3.9 GHz
3,900 MHz |
51 W
51,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7100T | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0. |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3.4 GHz
3,400 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7101E | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3.9 GHz
3,900 MHz |
54 W
54,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 610 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1. 1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7101TE | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3.4 GHz
3,400 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 610 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7120 | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 4 GHz
4,000 MHz |
51 W
51,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | |
| i3-7120T | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 3.5 GHz
3,500 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | |
| i3-7300 | $ 147. 00
€ 132.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 4 GHz
4,000 MHz |
51 W
51,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.15 GHz
1,150 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7300T | $ 147.00
€ 132.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3.5 GHz
3,500 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7310T | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
2017 | 2 | 4 | 3.4 GHz
3,400 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | |
| i3-7320 | $ 157.00
€ 141.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 4. 1 GHz
4,100 MHz |
51 W
51,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.15 GHz
1,150 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7320T | $ 147.00
€ 132.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 3.6 GHz
3,600 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | |
| i3-7340 | $ 157. 00
€ 141.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 4.2 GHz
4,200 MHz |
51 W
51,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.15 GHz
1,150 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ | |
| i3-7350K | $ 179.00
€ 161.10 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 4.2 GHz
4,200 MHz |
60 W
60,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0. |
1.15 GHz
1,150 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
014 μm 
0684 hp 
0625 TiB The 7th generation Mobile Core i3 processors which are based on the Kaby Lake microarchitecture were introduced in mid-2016 with later models introduced in early 2017. All mobile models use BGA-1356 socket for U-series models and BGA-1440 socket for H-series with the following common features:
| i3-7007U | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 3 MiB
3,072 KiB |
2.1 GHz
2,100 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
||
| i3-7020U | $ 281. € 252.90 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
10 April 2018 | 2 | 4 | 3 MiB
3,072 KiB |
2.3 GHz
2,300 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
| i3-7100H | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3 MiB
3,072 KiB |
3 GHz
3,000 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
950 MHz
0.95 GHz |
| i3-7100U | $ 281.00
€ 252.90 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
30 August 2016 | 2 | 4 | 3 MiB
3,072 KiB |
2.4 GHz
2,400 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
| i3-7110U | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 3 MiB
3,072 KiB |
2.6 GHz
2,600 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
||
| i3-7130U | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
12 June 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3 MiB
3,072 KiB |
2.7 GHz
2,700 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
|
| i3-7167U | $ 304.00
€ 273.60 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3 MiB
3,072 KiB |
2.8 GHz
2,800 MHz |
28 W
28,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
Iris Plus Graphics 650 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
| i3-7310U | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 3 MiB
3,072 KiB |
2.7 GHz
2,700 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
||
| i3-8130U | $ 281.00
€ 252.90 |
14 nm
0. |
12 February 2018 | 2 | 4 | 4 MiB
4,096 KiB |
2.2 GHz
2,200 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
UHD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1,000 MHz
1 GHz |
0201 hp 
00293 GiB 
014 μm Embedded 7th generation Core i3 processors were introduced in mid-2016 with later models introduced in early 2017. All mobile models have the following common features:
| i3-7007U | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 2.1 GHz
2,100 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1 GHz
1,000 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ||
| i3-7020U | $ 281.00
€ 252.90 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
10 April 2018 | 2 | 4 | 2.3 GHz
2,300 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1 GHz
1,000 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ |
| i3-7100E | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 2. 9 GHz
2,900 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
0.95 GHz
950 MHz |
✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7100U | $ 281.00
€ 252.90 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
30 August 2016 | 2 | 4 | 2.4 GHz
2,400 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1 GHz
1,000 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ |
| i3-7101E | $ 117. 00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3.9 GHz
3,900 MHz |
54 W
54,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 610 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7101TE | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 3.4 GHz
3,400 MHz |
35 W
35,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 610 | 350 MHz
0. |
1.1 GHz
1,100 MHz |
✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7102E | $ 225.00
€ 202.50 |
14 nm
0.014 μm |
3 January 2017 | 2 | 4 | 2.1 GHz
2,100 MHz |
25 W
25,000 mW |
64 GiB
65,536 MiB |
HD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
0.95 GHz
950 MHz |
✘ | ✔ | ✔ | ✘ |
| i3-7110U | 14 nm
0.014 μm |
2 | 4 | 2.6 GHz
2,600 MHz |
15 W
15,000 mW |
32 GiB
32,768 MiB |
HD Graphics 620 | 300 MHz
0.3 GHz |
1 GHz
1,000 MHz |
✔ | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ |
0313 TiB 
35 GHz 
0313 TiB 8th Generation-core based on the Coffee Lake microarchitecture were introduced in early 2018. Those parts offer are manufactured on Intel’s third generation 14 nm++ process which allowed for higher clock frequencies and a number of other changes.
Coffee Lake-based Core i3s were introduced in late 2017 with a number of high-end SKUs. A larger number of SKUs were introduced in April 2018. Although they still use standard Socket LGA-1151, those parts are no longer backwards compatible with earlier 100/200-series chipsets and must be paired with an appropriate 300-series chipset. A significant configuration change has taken place with the introduction of Coffee Lake including bumping the core count for the Core i3s from 2 cores to 4 and doubling the L3 cache which has signficantly increased the performance of those parts over the prior generation.
Note that with the doubling of the core, Intel has dropped hyper-threading support from those models. All models have the following features in common:
| i3-8000 | March 2018 | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
65 W
65,000 mW |
3.6 GHz
3,600 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
|
| i3-8020 | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
51 W
51,000 mW |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
||||
| i3-8100 | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
5 October 2017 | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
65 W
65,000 mW |
3.6 GHz
3,600 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
| i3-8100F | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
7 January 2019 | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
65 W
65,000 mW |
3.6 GHz
3,600 MHz |
|||
| i3-8120 | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
51 W
51,000 mW |
3.7 GHz
3,700 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
|||
| i3-8300 | $ 138.00
€ 124.20 |
2 April 2018 | 4 | 4 | 8 MiB
8,192 KiB |
62 W
62,000 mW |
3.7 GHz
3,700 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,150 MHz
1.15 GHz |
| i3-8320 | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
51 W
51,000 mW |
3.8 GHz
3,800 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
|||
| i3-8350K | $ 168.00
€ 151.20 |
5 October 2017 | 4 | 4 | 8 MiB
8,192 KiB |
91 W
91,000 mW |
4 GHz
4,000 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0. |
1,150 MHz
1.15 GHz |
| i3-8000T | March 2018 | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
35 W
35,000 mW |
3.1 GHz
3,100 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
|
| i3-8020T | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
35 W
35,000 mW |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
||||
| i3-8100T | $ 117.00
€ 105.30 |
2 April 2018 | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
35 W
35,000 mW |
3.1 GHz
3,100 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
| i3-8120T | 4 | 4 | 6 MiB
6,144 KiB |
35 W
35,000 mW |
3.2 GHz
3,200 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
|||
| i3-8300T | $ 138.00
€ 124.20 |
2 April 2018 | 4 | 4 | 8 MiB
8,192 KiB |
35 W
35,000 mW |
3.2 GHz
3,200 MHz |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
1,100 MHz
1.1 GHz |
| i3-8320T | 4 | 4 | 8 MiB
8,192 KiB |
35 W
35,000 mW |
UHD Graphics 630 | 350 MHz
0.35 GHz |
00586 GiB 
78 
35 GHz 
0469 hp 
00781 GiB 14th Generation Core i3 processors based on Meteor Lake are expected to launch in mid-2023.
List of Intel Core i3 processors
|
|
|
|
|
List of Intel Core i3 processors
Here is the list of chips for the group of processors Intel Core i3 with the basic technical details. As well as a link to their respective global characteristics.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the link above.
Processors:
| Intel Core i5-2320 | 2011 Q3 | 32 nm | 4 | 4 | 3000 | 3300 | 6000 | 32000 | 16 | 95 |
| Intel Core i5-2310 | 2011 Q2 | 32 nm | 4 | 4 | 2900 | 3200 | 6000 | 32000 | 16 | 95 |
| Intel Core i5-2300 | 2011 Q1 | 32 nm | 4 | 4 | 2800 | 3100 | 6000 | 32000 | 16 | 95 |
| Intel Core i3-L13G4 | 2020 Q2 | 10 nm | 5 | 5 | 800 | 2800 | 4000 | 9000 | 6 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-9350KF | 2019 Q1 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 4000 | 4600 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 91 |
| Intel Core i3-9350K | 2019 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 4000 | 4600 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 91 |
| Intel Core i3-9320 | 2019 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3700 | 4400 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 62 |
| Intel Core i3-9300T | 2019 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3200 | 3800 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-9300 | 2019 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3700 | 4300 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 62 |
| Intel Core i3-9100T | 2019 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3100 | 3700 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-9100F | 2019 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3600 | 4200 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-9100 | 2019 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3600 | 4200 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-8350K | 2017 Q4 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 4000 | 4000 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 91 |
| Intel Core i3-8300 | 2018 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3700 | 3700 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 62 |
| Intel Core i3-8145U | 2018 Q3 | 14 nm++ | 2 | 4 | 2100 | 3900 | 4000 | 64000 | 16 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-8130U | 2018 Q1 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 2200 | 3400 | 4000 | 32000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-8109U | 2018 Q2 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 3000 | 3600 | 4000 | 32000 | 12 | 28 |
| Intel Core i3-8100T | 2018 Q2 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3100 | 3100 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-8100B | 2018 Q3 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3600 | 3600 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-8100 | 2017 Q4 | 14 nm++ | 4 | 4 | 3600 | 3600 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-7350K | 2017 Q1 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 4200 | 4200 | 4000 | 64000 | 16 | 60 |
| Intel Core i3-7300 | 2017 Q1 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 4000 | 4000 | 4000 | 64000 | 16 | 51 |
| Intel Core i3-7130U | 2017 Q2 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 2700 | 2700 | 3000 | 32000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-7100U | 2016 Q3 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 2400 | 2400 | 3000 | 32000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-7100T | 2017 Q1 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 3400 | 3400 | 3000 | 64000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-7100 | 2017 Q1 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 3900 | 3900 | 3000 | 64000 | 16 | 51 |
| Intel Core i3-7020U | 2018 Q2 | 14 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 2300 | 2300 | 3000 | 32000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-6320 | 2015 Q3 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 3900 | 3900 | 4000 | 64000 | 16 | 51 |
| Intel Core i3-6300 | 2015 Q3 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 3800 | 3800 | 4000 | 64000 | 16 | 51 |
| Intel Core i3-6157U | 2016 Q3 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 2400 | 2400 | 3000 | 32000 | 12 | 28 |
| Intel Core i3-6100U | 2015 Q3 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 2300 | 2300 | 3000 | 32000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-6100T | 2015 Q3 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 3200 | 3200 | 3000 | 64000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-6100 | 2015 Q3 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 3700 | 3700 | 3000 | 64000 | 16 | 51 |
| Intel Core i3-6006U | 2016 Q4 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 2000 | 2000 | 3000 | 32000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-560 | 2010 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 3330 | 3330 | 4000 | 16380 | 16 | 73 |
| Intel Core i3-550 | 2010 Q2 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 3200 | 3200 | 4000 | 16380 | 16 | 73 |
| Intel Core i3-540 | 2010 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 3060 | 3060 | 4000 | 16380 | 16 | 73 |
| Intel Core i3-530 | 2010 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2930 | 2930 | 4000 | 16380 | 16 | 73 |
| Intel Core i3-5020U | 2015 Q1 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 2200 | 2200 | 3000 | 16000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-5010U | 2015 Q1 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 2100 | 2100 | 3000 | 16000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-5005U | 2015 Q1 | 14 nm | 2 | 4 | 2000 | 2000 | 3000 | 16000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-4370 | 2014 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3800 | 3800 | 4000 | 32000 | 16 | 54 |
| Intel Core i3-4360 | 2014 Q2 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3700 | 3700 | 4000 | 32000 | 16 | 54 |
| Intel Core i3-4340 | 2015 Q1 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3600 | 3600 | 4000 | 32000 | 16 | 54 |
| Intel Core i3-4330 | 2013 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3500 | 3500 | 4000 | 32000 | 16 | 54 |
| Intel Core i3-4170 | 2015 Q1 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3700 | 3700 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 54 |
| Intel Core i3-4160T | 2014 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3100 | 3100 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-4160 | 2014 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3600 | 3600 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 54 |
| Intel Core i3-4150T | 2017 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3000 | 3000 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-4150 | 2014 Q2 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3500 | 3500 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 54 |
| Intel Core i3-4130T | 2013 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 2900 | 2900 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-4130 | 2013 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3400 | 3400 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 54 |
| Intel Core i3-4100M | 2013 Q4 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 2500 | 2500 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 37 |
| Intel Core i3-4030U | 2014 Q2 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 1900 | 1900 | 3000 | 16000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-4020Y | 2013 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 1500 | 1500 | 3000 | 16000 | 12 | 6 |
| Intel Core i3-4010U | 2013 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 1700 | 1700 | 3000 | 16000 | 12 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-4005U | 2013 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 1700 | 1700 | 3000 | 16000 | 10 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-4000M | 2013 Q4 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 2400 | 2400 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 37 |
| Intel Core i3-380M | 2010 Q3 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2530 | 2530 | 3000 | 8000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-370M | 2010 Q3 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2400 | 2400 | 3000 | 8000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-350M | 2010 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2260 | 2260 | 3000 | 8000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-330M | 2010 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2130 | 2130 | 3000 | 8000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-3250 | 2012 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3500 | 3500 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 55 |
| Intel Core i3-3240T | 2012 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 2900 | 2900 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-3240 | 2012 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3400 | 3400 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 55 |
| Intel Core i3-3227U | 2013 Q1 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 1900 | 1900 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 17 |
| Intel Core i3-3225 | 2012 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3300 | 3300 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 55 |
| Intel Core i3-3220T | 2012 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 2800 | 2800 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-3220 | 2012 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3300 | 3300 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 55 |
| Intel Core i3-3217U | 2012 Q2 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 1800 | 1800 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 17 |
| Intel Core i3-3210 | 2013 Q1 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 3200 | 3200 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 55 |
| Intel Core i3-3120M | 2012 Q3 | 22 nm | 2 | 4 | 2500 | 2500 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-3110M | 2012 Q2 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2400 | 2400 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-2370M | 2012 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2400 | 2400 | 3000 | 16000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-2350M | 2011 Q4 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2300 | 2300 | 3000 | 16000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-2330M | 2011 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2200 | 2200 | 3000 | 16000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-2328M | 2012 Q3 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2200 | 2200 | 3000 | 16000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-2310M | 2011 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2100 | 2100 | 3000 | 16000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-2130 | 2011 Q3 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 3400 | 3400 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-2120T | 2011 Q3 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2600 | 2600 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-2120 | 2011 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 3300 | 3300 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-2100T | 2011 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 2500 | 2500 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-2100 | 2011 Q1 | 32 nm | 2 | 4 | 3100 | 3100 | 3000 | 32000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-13100 | 2022 Q4 | Intel 7 | 4 | 8 | 3400 | 4400 | 12000 | 128000 | 20 | 60 |
| Intel Core i3-12300T | 2022 Q1 | Intel 7 | 4 | 8 | 2300 | 4200 | 12000 | 128000 | 20 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-12300 | 2022 Q1 | Intel 7 | 4 | 8 | 3500 | 4400 | 12000 | 128000 | 20 | 60 |
| Intel Core i3-1220P | 2022 Q2 | Intel 7 | 10 | 12 | 1500 | 4400 | 12000 | 64000 | 20 | 28 |
| Intel Core i3-1215UE | 2022 Q1 | Intel 7 | 6 | 8 | 1200 | 4400 | 10000 | 64000 | 20 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-1215U | 2022 Q1 | Intel 7 | 6 | 8 | 1200 | 4400 | 10000 | 64000 | 20 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-1210U | 2022 Q1 | Intel 7 | 6 | 8 | 1000 | 4400 | 10000 | 64000 | 14 | 9 |
| Intel Core i3-12100T | 2022 Q1 | Intel 7 | 4 | 8 | 2200 | 4100 | 12000 | 128000 | 20 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-12100F | 2022 Q1 | Intel 7 | 4 | 8 | 3300 | 4300 | 12000 | 128000 | 20 | 58 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 2022 Q1 | Intel 7 | 4 | 8 | 3300 | 4300 | 12000 | 128000 | 20 | 60 |
| Intel Core i3-1125G4 | 2021 Q1 | 10 nm SuperFin | 4 | 8 | 900 | 3700 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 28 |
| Intel Core i3-1120G4 | 2021 Q1 | 10 nm SuperFin | 4 | 8 | 800 | 3500 | 8000 | 32000 | 16 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-1115GRE | 2020 Q3 | 10 nm SuperFin | 2 | 4 | 2200 | 3900 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 28 |
| Intel Core i3-1115G4E | 2020 Q3 | 10 nm SuperFin | 2 | 4 | 2200 | 3900 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-1115G4 | 2020 Q3 | 10 nm SuperFin | 2 | 4 | 1700 | 4100 | 6000 | 64000 | 16 | 28 |
| Intel Core i3-1110G4 | 2020 Q3 | 10 nm SuperFin | 2 | 4 | 1800 | 3900 | 6000 | 32000 | 16 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-11100HE | 2021 Q3 | 10 nm SuperFin | 4 | 8 | 1900 | 4400 | 8000 | 128000 | 20 | 45 |
| Intel Core i3-11100B | 2021 Q2 | 10 nm SuperFin | 4 | 8 | 3600 | 4400 | 12000 | 128000 | 20 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-10325 | 2021 Q1 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3900 | 4700 | 8000 | 128000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-10320 | 2020 Q2 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3800 | 4600 | 8000 | 128000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-10305 | 2021 Q1 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3800 | 4500 | 8000 | 128000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-10300T | 2020 Q2 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3000 | 3900 | 8000 | 128000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-10300 | 2020 Q2 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3700 | 4400 | 8000 | 64000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-10110Y | 2019 Q3 | 14 nm++ | 2 | 4 | 1000 | 4000 | 4000 | 16000 | 16 | 9 |
| Intel Core i3-10110U | 2019 Q3 | 14 nm++ | 2 | 4 | 2100 | 4100 | 4000 | 64000 | 16 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-10105T | 2021 Q1 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3000 | 3900 | 6000 | 128000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-10105F | 2021 Q1 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3700 | 4400 | 6000 | 128000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-10105 | 2021 Q1 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3700 | 4500 | 6000 | 128000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-10100Y | 2021 Q1 | 14 nm+++ | 2 | 4 | 1300 | 3900 | 4000 | 16000 | 10 | 5 |
| Intel Core i3-10100T | 2020 Q2 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3000 | 3800 | 6000 | 128000 | 16 | 35 |
| Intel Core i3-10100F | 2020 Q4 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3600 | 4300 | 6000 | 128000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 2020 Q2 | 14 nm+++ | 4 | 8 | 3600 | 4300 | 6000 | 128000 | 16 | 65 |
| Intel Core i3-1005G1 | 2019 Q3 | 10 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 1200 | 3400 | 4000 | 64000 | 16 | 15 |
| Intel Core i3-1000NG4 | 2020 Q2 | 10 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 1100 | 3200 | 4000 | 32000 | 16 | 9 |
| Intel Core i3-1000G4 | 2019 Q3 | 10 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 1100 | 3200 | 4000 | 32000 | 16 | 9 |
| Intel Core i3-1000G1 | 2019 Q3 | 10 nm+ | 2 | 4 | 1100 | 3200 | 4000 | 32000 | 16 | 9 |
Specifications and performance of the Intel Core i3 processors
All Core i3 Models — Hardware Secrets
These are a series of quick reference tables showing the main specs of all Core i3 models released to date.
Updated to include “Haswell” models.
Home » All Core i3 Models
Introduction
Contents
The Core i3 is a CPU series manufactured by Intel aimed at entry-level computers. In this tutorial, we will present a series of quick reference tables for you to compare the main differences between all models released to date.
By the way, the correct name of this line of processors is “Core i3,” not “Intel i3.”
Currently, there are three different generations of Core i3 processors available. In the table below, we describe the main differences between these generations.
| Model | 5xx | 3xx | 21xx | 23xx |
| Market | Desktop | Mobile | Desktop | Mobile |
| Generation | First | First | Second | Second |
| Microarchitecture | Nehalem | Nehalem | Sandy Bridge | Sandy Bridge |
| Manufacturing Process | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Number of Cores | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Hyper-Threading | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| L1 cache (per core) | 32 kiB+32 kiB | 32 kiB+32kiB | 32 kiB+32 kiB | 32 kiB+32kiB |
| L2 cache (per core) | 256 kiB | 256 kiB | 256 kiB | 256 kiB |
| L3 cache (total) | 4 MiB | 3 MiB | 3 MiB | 3 MiB |
| DMI bus | 1 GB/s | 1 GB/s | 2 GB/s | 2 GB/s |
| Memory (DDR3) | 1066, 1333 | 800, 1066 | 1066, 1333 | 1066, 1333, 1600 |
| DDR3L and DDR3L-RS | No | No | No | No |
| Graphics Engine | HD Graphics | HD Graphics | HD 2000 or HD 3000 | HD 3000 |
| DirectX | 10 | 10 | 10. 1 |
10.1 |
| Graphics Processors | 6 | 6 | 6 or 12 | 12 |
| Graphics Base Clock | 733 MHz | 166 MHz or 500 MHz | 650 MHz or 850 MHz | 350 MHz or 650 MHz |
| Graphics Boost Clock | No | 500 MHz or 667 MHz | 1.1 GHz | 1 GHz or 1.15 GHz |
| Displays Supported | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| PCIe Controller | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCIe Configuration | 1×16, 2×8 | 1×16 | 1×16, 2×8, 1×8, 2×4 | 1×16, 2×8, 1×8, 2×4 |
| Turbo Boost | No | No | No | No |
| EM64T | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
SSE4. 2 |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| AES-NI | No | No | No | No |
| AVX | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| AVX2 | No | No | No | No |
| Base Clock | 133 MHz | 133 MHz | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Pinout | LGA1156 | G1 or BGA1288 | LGA1155 | G2 or BGA1023 |
| Model | 32xx | 3xxx | 4xxx | 4xxx |
| Market | Desktop | Mobile | Desktop | Mobile |
| Generation | Third | Third | Fouth | Fourth |
| Microarchitecture | Ivy Bridge | Ivy Bridge | Haswell | Haswell |
| Manufacturing Process | 22 nm | 22 nm | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Number of Cores | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Hyper-Threading | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| L1 cache (per core) | 32 kiB+32kiB | 32 kiB+32 kiB | 32 kiB+32 kiB | 32 kiB+32 kiB |
| L2 cache (per core) | 256 kiB | 256 kiB | 256 kiB | 256 kiB |
| L3 cache (total) | 3 MiB | 3 MiB | 3 MiB or 4 MiB | 3 MiB |
| DMI bus | 2 GB/s | 2 GB/s | 2 GB/s | 2 GB/s |
| Memory (DDR3) | 1333, 1600 | 1333, 1600 | 1333, 1600 | 1333, 1600 |
| DDR3L and DDR3L-RS | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Graphics Engine | HD 2500 or HD 4000 | HD 4000 | ||
| DirectX | 11 | 11 | 11. 1 |
11.1 |
| Graphics Processors | 6 or 12 | 12 | HD 4400 or HD 4600 | HD 4200, HD 4400, HD 4600 or Iris 5100 |
| Graphics Base Clock | 650 MHz | 350 MHz or 650 MHz | HD 4400 or HD 4600 | HD 4200, HD 4400, HD 4600 or Iris 5100 |
| Graphics Boost Clock | 1.05 GHz | 1.05 GHz or 1 GHz | HD 4400 or HD 4600 | HD 4200, HD 4400, HD 4600 or Iris 5100 |
| Displays Supported | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| PCIe Controller | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCIe Configuration | 1×16, 2×8, 1×8, 2×4 | 1×16, 2×8, 1×8, 2×4 | 1×16, 2×8, 1×8, 2×4 | 1×16, 2×8, 1×8, 2×4 ou 1×4, 4×1 |
| Turbo Boost | No | No | No | No |
| EM64T | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
SSE4. 2 |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| AES-NI | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| AVX | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| AVX2 | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Base Clock | 100 MHz | 100 MHz | 100 MHz | 100 MHz |
| Pinout | LGA1155 | G2 or BGA1023 | LGA1150 | FCPGA946 or FCBGA1168 |
Let’s now take a detailed look at all Core i3 models launched so far.
CPU Tutorials
Reader Interactions
Testing of the quad-core Intel Core i3-12100 (Alder Lake) processor for the new LGA1700 platform
We have already gone through the top of the line of processors for the LGA1700 completely, we recently got acquainted with the new Celeron, but the conditional middle class was represented exclusively by the Core i5 in the tests -12400.
This is the youngest desktop six-core processor of the Alder Lake family — which is interesting. But as we noted in his review, the new quad-core Core i3s are perhaps even more interesting. Theoretical, for sure. Simply because there have been no significant updates in the range of Intel quad-core models since 2015, when the Skylake-based Core i7 appeared. For a couple of years they were the fastest Intel desktop models (if you do not take into account HEDT — but there is an atmosphere there), then, as part of the competition with AMD, the focus shifted towards six and eight cores, but the old men were reborn from the ashes in 2020 — already under the brand name Core i3 and noticeably cheaper. Price is an important consumer characteristic, but in terms of technology, the new models were almost identical to the old ones, with the exception of a few small nuances. At the same time, they did not differ much from their direct predecessors — since the Core i3 for the “second version” of LGA1151 exactly repeated the Core i5 for the first one (the same Skylake, the same four cores — just without Hyper-Threading, unlike Core i7).
And after almost two years, nothing happened — only Core i5 and higher were produced based on Rocket Lake. Thus, the Core i3 line of Alder Lake is the first major update of Intel’s quad-core models in almost seven years.
Testing low-cost quad-core AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X
processors It is noteworthy that the last notable update of processors in this class from AMD also applies to the spring of 2020 — when the Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X entered the market. They appeared a little earlier than the announcement of the LGA1200, but these events could not be considered independent even out of politeness. Earlier AMD quad-cores based on the Zen microarchitecture roughly corresponded to the Core i5 and Core i7 of the Haswell family, but not Skylake — so they turned out to be competitive only if there was a head start in the number of cores or at least computation threads. Simply put, against the new Core i3 they would already be just did not pull . In addition, PCIe Gen4 support was also exclusive to AMD AM4 in early 2020.
But to get it, you initially needed an expensive motherboard based on the AMD X570 chipset and a six-core Ryzen 5 — at a price of two hundred dollars (unofficially, there were a couple of more affordable models, but they were not found in all markets). Therefore, the release of inexpensive Ryzen 3, coupled with the advent of the B550 chipset, has become an urgent need. At the same time, having blurred the effect of the LGA1200 in this segment, the corresponding AMD proposals turned out to be more productive and is more technologically advanced than Core i3, so the attention of many buyers was diverted to itself. The only thing they lacked a bit was an integrated GPU, but in the first half of 2020 this did not cause any particular problems. Later, quad-core APUs based on Zen2 (Ryzen 3 4300G) and even Zen3 (Ryzen 3 5300G) appeared, but they did not have a significant impact on the market. First, the performance of AMD APUs is traditionally lower than that of «pure» processors — much less cache memory is placed on the crystals, which greatly affects performance.
Second, with support fashion technologies are getting worse — companies still do not support PCIe Gen4 APUs. Most importantly, AMD did not sell these models at retail at all, limiting itself to deliveries to system builders, and even then not very active ones. The reason is simple — the same crystals are also used for laptop processors, which require a lot, so AMD could not provide absolutely everyone with them. And it was the quad-core models that suffered the most from the shortage — which also concerned the Ryzen 3 3100/3300X. Simply because there are no special crystals for them, and there are few defects in production, so it can also be disposed of in the form of more profitable six-core Ryzen 5.
On the other hand… maybe quad-core processors are no longer needed at all? From the point of view of enthusiasts, it is quite possible: they were “tired” of such things five to ten years ago. Therefore, all those who suffer from getting the maximum have long since switched to at least six cores, or even more of them, as soon as such processors became available in large quantities.
But other things being equal, four cores are always slightly cheaper than six — not to mention eight or, moreover, sixteen. Until now, there is a huge fleet of equipment on old two-quad-core processors, which, in principle, cope with their tasks, which is also taken into account by software manufacturers. At the same time, many owners of such computers, in principle, do not mind changing them to something faster and more modern (since the “historical” platforms have long been outdated in terms of supporting modern peripheral interfaces), but if possible, they would prefer to save money. Let it be at the cost of some performance degradation in resource-intensive tasks — the comfort of interactive work is still determined to the maximum extent by single-threaded performance, and «extra» cores may simply turn out to be useless. Money is always useful. Especially if the agenda is to assemble an inexpensive system without a discrete graphics card — fortunately, outside of gaming, modern Intel 700-series GPUs are usually not inferior to even the best and most modern discrete graphics card, not to mention something outdated.
Therefore, we repeat, the new Core i3 are very interesting from a practical point of view — since these are a priori the best quad-core processors at the moment. But quad-core — younger Core i5 is obviously faster, although not fundamentally more expensive. However, you need to test the Core i3 at least in order to evaluate how much faster the Core i5 is. Moreover, not only Intel processors and not only the most modern ones are presented on the market, which makes the choice even more difficult. The problem of choice itself, however, always has to be solved exclusively on its own. But to provide the information necessary to solve it is already our task. So let’s move on to it.
Test participants
| Intel Core i3-10100 | Intel Core i3-12100 | Intel Core i5-11400 | Intel Core i5-12400 | Intel Core i7-4790K | Intel Core i7-7700K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core name | Comet Lake | Alder Lake | Rocket Lake | Alder Lake | Haswell Refresh | Kaby Lake |
| Production technology | 14 nm | Intel 7 | 14 nm | Intel 7 | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3. 6/4.3 |
3.3/4.3 | 2.6/4.4 | 2.5/4.4 | 4.0/4.4 | 4.2/4.5 |
| Number of cores/threads | 4/8 | 4/8 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 4/8 | 4/8 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 128/128 | 128/192 | 192/288 | 192/288 | 128/128 | 128/128 |
| L2 cache, KB | 4×256 | 4×1280 | 6×512 | 6×1280 | 4×256 | 4×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 6 | 12 | 12 | 18 | 8 | 8 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-3200 or 2×DDR5-4800 | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 or 2×DDR5-4800 | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR4-2400 |
| TDP, W | 65 | 60 / 89 | 65 | 65 / 117 | 88 | 91 |
| Number of PCIe lanes | 16 (Gen3) | 16 (Gen5) + 4 (Gen4) | 20 (Gen4) | 16 (Gen5) + 4 (Gen4) | 16 (Gen3) | 16 (Gen3) |
| Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 730 | UHD Graphics 730 | UHD Graphics 730 | HD Graphics 4600 | HD Graphics 630 |
The new Core i3-12100 must be compared not only with its immediate predecessor in the face of the Core i3-10100, but also with the sibling Core i5-12400.
The first is to evaluate the progress size of . The second is the loss from choosing four cores instead of six. Even in comparison, the Core i5-11400 suggests itself: also six cores, but of an older architecture and cheaper. Previously, the i5-10400 occupied the position of the cheapest six-core Intel processor, but now these processors are almost the same, so we decided to choose a faster and functional (albeit gluttonous). And here we also added a couple of old quad-core Core i7 — the best models for the first version of the LGA1151 and the earlier LGA1150. The first, as already mentioned, almost coincides with the Core i3 two years ago, differing in small things, but the second is more important. Since the issue of modernization has long been standing in front of the surviving users of the mentioned platform in full growth. The easiest and cheapest way, of course, is to install the fastest supported processor — that’s why it’s interesting: how it looks against the background of modern middlings.
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core name | Matisse | Renoir | Matisse | Cezanne |
| Production technology | 7/12 nm | 7 nm | 7/12 nm | 7 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3.6/3.9 | 3.8/4.0 | 3.6/4.2 | 3.9/4.4 |
| Number of cores/threads | 4/8 | 4/8 | 6/12 | 6/12 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 128/128 | 128/128 | 192/192 | 192/192 |
| L2 cache, KB | 4×512 | 4×512 | 6×512 | 6×512 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 16 | 4 | 32 | 16 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 |
| TDP, W | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 |
| Number of PCIe lanes | 20 (Gen4) | 20 (Gen3) | 20 (4. 0) |
20 (3.0) |
| Integrated GPU | no | Radeon | no | Radeon |
Everything is easier with AMD devices — we definitely need two of the most modern quad-core processors from this company, since this is the main topic of testing. To which we add two six-core ones — once there are the same number from Intel. We initially compared the Core i5-12400 with four, so today we will leave the two most significant (in our opinion) and “equalize” the memory system. The main heroes are still not them, and it is very difficult to draw direct parallels between modern AMD and Intel processors. At least due to the fact that in the first case you have to be torn between APUs and «clean» CPUs — Intel processors are more versatile: use them even with a discrete video card, even without them. And in this segment, after all, “without” is more relevant. And in this case, it turns out that APUs win in games (conditionally — in fact, the performance of their graphics part is also too low to seriously consider them as gaming solutions), losing significantly in video decoding, etc.
And the platforms themselves became very different. The imbalance will be corrected only after the release of AMD AM5, but when this happens, it seems that even AMD is still unknown. Therefore, just once again compare the performance of the processor part.
We had to use different motherboards, of course, and the rest of the environment was the same AMD Radeon Vega 56 graphics card, SATA SSD and 16 GB of DDR4 memory (DDR3 for Core i7-4790K), the maximum frequency spec. The new Intel platform also supports DDR5, but in this segment it is only theoretical. A discrete video card is needed just to equalize the chances of : AMD and Intel GPUs behave very differently in different applications — outside of gaming use, usually (and for a long time) in favor of Intel. And some of the subjects are not supplied with integrated graphics.
Test Method
Methodology for testing computer systems of the 2020 sample
The testing methodology is described in detail in a separate article, and the results of all tests are available in a separate table in Microsoft Excel format.
Directly in the articles, we use the processed results: normalized with respect to the reference system (Intel Core i5-9600K with 16 GB of memory, AMD Radeon Vega 56 video card and SATA SSD) and grouped by computer application areas. Accordingly, on all diagrams related to applications, dimensionless points, so here “more is better” everywhere. And starting from this year, we are finally transferring game tests to an optional status (the reasons for which are discussed in detail in the description of the test methodology), so that only specialized materials will be available for them. Core i5-12600K and Core i9We have already tested -12900K in gaming applications, and the time of junior processors will also come soon.
iXBT Application Benchmark 2020
| Points (100 = Core i5-9600K; more is better) | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 86.5 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 78. 7 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 126.6 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 142.0 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 70.4 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 79.9 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 78.5 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 107.0 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 119.9 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 141.4 |
The 2020 Ryzen 3s looked somewhat better than the Core i3s of the same time or the older Core i7s, but as you might expect, the title of best quad-core processors has now gone to the LGA1700 Core i3s by a landslide. The only thing that could strengthen AMD’s position here is the transition to Zen3. But in «pure» quad-core processors this microarchitecture is not used, and the corresponding desktop APUs on it exist purely virtually — with all the consequences. The ratio in the 12400 / 5600G pair hints that the latter could be enough — but there is no point in regretting what could have been, but did not happen.
We can say that AMD leaves this segment without a fight — but it will only be formally correct. Analyzing prices at the time of this writing is a thankless task, but as a first approximation, today the Ryzen 5 3600 can be found a little more expensive than the Core i3-12100, to which savings on the motherboard can be added, if you do not chase modern technologies. Given the latter factor, it is likely to fit into the same amount with the Ryzen 5 5600G — that is, even for building a computer without a discrete graphics card, the new Intel processors are not so uncontested. But it is better to check the prices immediately before buying — anything can happen with them. Technically, the new Core i3 are the best quad-core processors. But they convincingly overtake exclusively quad-core models. A relatively modern six-core processor (not older than three years) will work faster, but it may not cost more.
| Points (100 = Core i5-9600K; more is better) | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 88. 5 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 85.3 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 129.5 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 147.3 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 76.2 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 87.8 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 83.2 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 115.7 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 130.1 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 156.4 |
In this group, the picture does not change, since they are also capable of 100% loading not only four or six, but also more computing cores. To compensate for the one and a half times lag in quantity, the “quality” of the cores needs to be improved by the same one and a half times. They got it despite the “jump” through the architecture and process technology of about a third. The result itself is good — especially against the background of several years of marking time.
But not enough to smash the six-core. If only very old ones — like Ryzen 5 2017-2018. Everything is fine here — the Ryzen 5 2600X is even a little slower than the Core i3-12100, not to mention the others. But no more.
| Points (100 = Core i5-9600K; more is better) | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 85.0 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 85.6 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 112.3 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 132.8 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 73.6 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 86.4 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 82.0 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 112.4 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 117.9 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 141. 4 |
And here is an example of the importance of single-threaded performance — even in conditions of good utilization and the number of cores. As a result, the Ryzen 5 3600 managed to catch up. Although it is clear that the victory is only conditional — after all, for active work with video, it is unlikely that anyone today will buy a quad-core processor. Even if you want to save money, the choice will be more likely between six and eight. It is not necessary to play badly to lose — it is enough to play worse .
| Points (100 = Core i5-9600K; more is better) | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 99.6 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 84.7 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 118.4 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 123.3 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 74. 4 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 91.3 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 83.5 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 133.1 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 119.2 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 152.7 |
Task for architecture , and if equal — for the clock frequency and only thirdly for the number of cores. No wonder that in such conditions the Core i3-12100 can lose to only one processor from our sample — the Core i5-12400. But he — in principle, can not lose. Albeit easily overtaking (sometimes with a devastating score) all the other test participants. So, again, globally nothing changes. Not because quad-core processors began to work poorly — just architecturally similar six-core processors have become too affordable. But the absolute results themselves are, of course, impressive.
| Points (100 = Core i5-9600K; more is better) | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 101. 0 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 95.9 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 157.5 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 169.6 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 82.9 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 96.0 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 90.9 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 119.1 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 138.9 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 165.7 |
In this case, they are also impressive, but only as long as there is parity in the number of cores and computation threads. When it is not, there is nothing outstanding. Ryzen 5 3600 became a real 9 for a reason0003 by the popular processor — six cores of a fast microarchitecture, combined with a relatively low price (at that time), is truly an explosive mixture. There were faster processors even then, later faster and also inexpensive ones appeared, but to get higher performance is noticeably cheaper — this is not the case now.
And AMD itself did not even try to repeat such a carpet bombardment of later. The side effect is that the main victims were quad-core processors. Since a 30% advantage over the Core i3-10100 or 20% compared to the Ryzen 3 3100 is impressive, but then we compare the same Core i3-12100 with six-core processors that have become familiar and … the desire to save money may disappear. Especially, we repeat, because the savings may not work out — it is natural that in retail the margins for new items are higher than for almost three-year-old «old men», which can easily eat up all the difference in recommended prices.
| Points (100 = Core i5-9600K; more is better) | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 96.9 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 81.6 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 146.1 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 126.9 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 92. 5 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 99.9 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 98.5 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 122.9 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 150.2 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 166.7 |
There are no fundamental changes in the picture. But there is one curious nuance — as has been noted more than once, an obvious «cache failure» in many scenarios radically harms AMD APUs. Which, combined with the current situation on the video card market, as well as the functional differences between the AM4 and LGA1700 platforms, can cause a curious conflict — for once when assembling a computer for a long happy life in parts it makes sense to already focus on Intel products. Indeed, there are inexpensive full-featured processors equipped with an integrated GPU, but they work fine with discrete video cards, and it’s not difficult to change them later to more powerful ones (fortunately, there are already some).
However, once again this argument is more in favor of the Core i5 — since it is much more likely that they will not have to be changed. But the Core i3 in this regard is already beginning to raise doubts.
| Points (100 = Core i5-9600K; more is better) | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 84.4 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 83.3 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 119.0 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 137.2 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 67.6 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 79.2 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 73.4 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 112.3 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 114.6 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 150.0 |
The result itself is quite beautiful — at the level of many six-core processors.
And not so old and slow — the Core i5-10600K, for example, is practically no faster, but this is the best Core i5 two years ago (and faster than the six-core Core i7-8700K / 8086K). But once again I have to repeat — road spoon for dinner . Everyone is already accustomed to six-core processors — and they do not perceive them as something exotic. And a modern six-core processor is always no worse than a modern quad-core one — and no longer fundamentally more expensive.
| Points (100 = Core i5-9600K; more is better) | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 91.5 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 84.9 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 129.1 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 139.2 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 76.4 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 88.4 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 84. 0 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 117.2 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 126.7 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 153.2 |
Grand total — appropriate. This is a big step for quad-core processors — but a small one for the market in general. If Intel’s initial plans for mastering new technical processes (to which microarchitecture updates were tied) came true, we would have received something similar two or three years ago. And under such conditions, the race of nuclei might not have turned around. And so everyone is already accustomed to the fact that all the most interesting things only begin with the six-core ones. Moreover, in the mass segment itself, for enthusiasts this is a long-passed stage. Manufacturers also added fuel to the fire, for a long time they simply abandoned this segment. In any case, in relation to the desktop market, but even in top-end laptops, the focus has already begun to shift towards multi-core solutions.
Intel decided to fully return to such models — and seriously improved them. But during this time, a considerable number of inexpensive six-core processors managed to accumulate on the market — many of which remained faster.
Energy consumption and energy efficiency
| Maximum power | Minimum power | Medium power | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 92.9 | 49.1 | 82.1 |
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 92.4 | 48.6 | 83.7 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 133.2 | 64.3 | 114.3 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 108.2 | 37.3 | 87.8 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 118.0 | 43.7 | 100.6 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 94.3 | 34.0 | 84.8 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 86. 1 |
39.7 | 72.6 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 103.9 | 49.4 | 92.3 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 121.0 | 64.1 | 114.3 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 118.2 | 53.5 | 109.9 |
The tenth generation Core i3 were at least very economical processors — the twelfth can no longer boast of any outstanding efficiency. Power consumption, however, is lower than almost all six-core models, with the exception, perhaps, of the Ryzen 5 5600G, but no more. Of the quad-cores, only very old models of the first half of the last decade are distinguished by a greater appetite — due to the use of significantly more crude manufacturing processes. But in relation to their upgrade, if you think about it, then it makes sense to migrate immediately to Core i5 — to get a higher level of performance. And, again, going from four cores to six is psychologically more pleasant than four.
Even if it’s fast too.
| Performance per watt | |
| AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | 1.11 |
|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G | 1.01 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | 1.13 |
| AMD Ryzen 5 5600G | 1.58 |
| Intel Core i7-4790K | 0.76 |
| Intel Core i7-7700K | 1.04 |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 1.16 |
| Intel Core i3-12100 | 1.27 |
| Intel Core i5-11400 | 1.11 |
| Intel Core i5-12400 | 1.39 |
And in general — as has been said more than once, power consumption in isolation from the speed of operation in the case of typical desktop personal computers is not very interesting. In a laptop, it’s a different matter: there you have to take into account the limitations of the cooling system.
Even more so in servers: often, in principle, consumption limits for each rack are strictly set, and workloads are long. In a personal computer, the CO is often simply redundant (few people even use such processors with the simplest boxed coolers and their analogues), and most of the time the processor, if not sleeping, then works far from the maximum. Loaded with work — reached the maximum, solved the problem, fell asleep. As a result, a faster, but gluttonous processor can to lap even save electricity: get the job done faster and sleep longer. And in the loaded state, will consume less energy per unit of work — which we observe in this case as well. The energy efficiency of the new Core i3 is higher than that of the old ones — but lower than that of the new Core i5. And with a fixed amount of work, it may turn out that the quad-core will already “thresh to the fullest”, and six- and eight-core processors will continue to work under the same conditions at half strength .
And with even less power consumption. In general, no matter how sorry this era is, it is leaving.
Total
Core i3 processors first appeared on the LGA1156 platform and looked great back then. They were inexpensive, they were able, unlike the outdated Core 2 Duo, to perform four computation threads (although on the same two cores), and they differed from most Core i5 only in the absence of Turbo Boost support. Actually, the gap between them and the older desktop Core i7 was not so big: conventionally, the former could be considered halves of the latter. In principle, this ratio was also observed later — up to the second version of LGA1151 or LGA1200. But Core i7 for these platforms has already ceased to be top-end: Core i9 has been added on top. And the Core i7 for the LGA1700 is already running 20 computation threads — not equivalent, but the cluster of E-cores still increases performance. All in all, it’s not half. And the lag in performance characteristics from the Core i5 has increased compared to the first half of the 2010s.
So, as already mentioned, does not have to play poorly to lose — it is enough to play worse than . This is exactly what happened with today’s quad-core processors: six-core models may cost slightly more, but are faster. Of course, there are situations when such savings are needed, but more often you can not stoop to such savings. Especially against the backdrop of the full cost of the entire system — here the twofold difference in the price of the processors themselves can eventually result in a few percentage points, since the rest of the components will cost the same. And twice as expensive as the Core i3 are not the younger, but the older Core i5. And the Ryzen 5 5600G, complete with an inexpensive board, may end up being no more expensive. With the Ryzen 5 3600 (if you still focus on a discrete graphics card), this will all the more work.
So the verdict is simple. The 12th Gen desktop Core i3s are great processors. Some five or six years ago, nothing like this was sold for significantly more money, but today they are just inexpensive models.
But the market has changed significantly over these five or six years, so other processors have become more in demand. These, however, will also sell well in budget computers — at least not Pentium after all 🙂 But before making a choice in favor of Core i3, you need to think carefully and calculate all the pros and cons. At the moment, these are the best quad-core processors of all time. but the younger Core i5 already look more attractive.
Core i3-10100 [in 14 benchmarks]
Intel
Core i3-10100
- Interface
- Core frequency
- Video memory size
- Memory type
- Memory frequency
- Maximum resolution
Description
Intel launched the Intel Core i3-10100 on April 30, 2020 at a suggested price of $130. This is a Comet Lake-S architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 4 cores and 8 threads and is manufactured using 14 nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 4300 MHz, the multiplier is locked.
In terms of compatibility, this is an FCLGA1200 socket processor with a TDP of 65W and a maximum temperature of 72°C. It supports DDR4 memory.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
8.70%
from the leader, which is AMD EPYC 7h22.
Core i3
10100
or
EPYC
7h22
General information
Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the Core i3-10100, as well as when sales started and cost at that time.
| place in the performance rating | 786 | |
| Price-quality | 38.53 | |
| Type | Decktopny | |
| CODTORY Name of Architecture | Comet Lake-S (2020) | |
| Price at the time of release | $ 130 | out of 305 (Core i7-870) |
| Price now | 130 $ (1x) | of 14999 (Xeon Platinum 9282) |
The price-quality ratio
We compare the characteristics of processors and their value, taking into account the cost of other processors.
- 0
- 50
- 100
Features
Core i3-10100 quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock state. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.
040
Information on Core i3-10100 compatibility with other computer components.
Useful, for example, when choosing the configuration of a future computer or to upgrade an existing one.
Please note that the power consumption of some processors can significantly exceed their nominal TDP even without overclocking. Some may even double their claims if the motherboard allows you to adjust the power settings of the processor.
Technologies supported by Core i3-10100 that speed up virtual machines are listed.
| AMD-V | + | |
| VT-d | + | |
| VT-x | + | |
| EPT | + |
RAM support
Types, maximum amount and channels of RAM supported by Core i3-10100. Higher memory frequency may be supported depending on the motherboard.
| RAM | DDR4 | out of 5200 (Ryzen 5 7600x) | ||
| Permissible memory volume | 128 GB | |||
| Number of memory channels | 2 | out of 12 (Xeon Platinum 9221) | ||
| memory capacity | 9000 | 9000 9 from 281.64 9000 (XEON PLANUM 9,0004, 9,00064. Support for ECC memory |
— |
Integrated video specifications
General parameters of the integrated video card in Core i3-10100.
Built -in video
Interfaces and connections supported by the integrated graphics card in the Core i3-10100.
| Maximum number of monitors | 3 |
built -in video — support API
APIs supported by the Core i3-10100 integrated graphics card, including their versions.
| DirectX | 12 | |
Peripherals
Core i3-10100 supported peripherals and how to connect them.
| CHILDSISE PCI EXPRESS | 3.0 | out of 5 (Core i9-12900K) |
| Number of PCI-Express | 9000 9000 9000 (one |
Benchmark tests
These are the results of the Core i3-10100 performance tests in non-gaming benchmarks. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest processor at the moment.
Overall performance in tests
This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
i3-10100
8.70
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 Single Core
- GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
- Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
- Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
- Cinebench 11.
5 64-bit multi-core - Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
- Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
- Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
- TrueCrypt AES
- WinRAR 4.0
- x264 encoding pass 2
- x264 encoding pass 1
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption, and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
i3-10100
8767
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
i3-10100
1090
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks that can be used to accurately measure performance.
This version uses all available processor cores.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
i3-10100
3964
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is a very outdated ray tracing benchmark for processors developed by the authors of Cinema 4D, Maxon. The Single-Core version uses a single CPU thread to render a futuristic motorcycle model.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
i3-10100
6863
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 that uses all processor threads. The possible number of threads in this version is limited to 16.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
i3-10100
26903
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 that uses all processor threads. This version supports a maximum of 64 threads.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
i3-10100
10
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core (sometimes referred to as Multi-Thread) is a variant of Cinebench R15 that uses all of the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
i3-10100
895
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (Release 15) is a benchmark created by Maxon, the creator of the popular Cinema 4D 3D modeling package. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench using more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes referred to as Single-Thread) uses only one CPU thread to render a room full of mirror balls and complexly shaped lights.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
i3-10100
181
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark developed by Maxon. authors of Cinema 4D. It has been superseded by later versions of Cinebench which use more modern variants of the Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads one CPU thread with ray tracing, rendering a glossy room full of crystal spheres and lights.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
i3-10100
2.
1
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a deprecated program that was widely used to encrypt disk partitions on the fly. It contains several built-in benchmarks, one of which is TrueCrypt AES. It measures the speed of data encryption using the AES algorithm. The result of the test is the encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
i3-10100
5
WinRAR 4.0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of the popular archiver. It contains an internal speed test using maximum compression by the RAR algorithm on large amounts of randomly generated data. Results are measured in kilobytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 12%
i3-10100
6124
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower MPEG4 x264 video compression benchmark, resulting in a variable bit rate output file. This results in a better quality of the resulting video file, as a higher bit rate is used when it is needed more.
The benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
Benchmark coverage: 12%
i3-10100
56
x264 encoding pass 1
The x264 benchmark uses the MPEG 4 x264 compression method to encode the sample video in HD (720p). Pass 1 is a faster option that produces an output file at a constant bit rate. Its result is measured in frames per second, that is, how many frames of the source video file were encoded in one second on average.
Benchmark coverage: 12%
i3-10100
213
Relative capacity
Core i3-10100 overall performance compared to its nearest competitor desktop processors.
Intel Core i7-6700K
102.18
Intel Core i3-10100F
100.92
Intel Core i3-10105
100.11
Intel Core i3-10100
100
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
99.
54
Intel Core i7-7700
98.62
Intel Core i7-3960X
96.9
Competitor from AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to Core i3-10100 from AMD is Ryzen 5 2400G, which is roughly equal in speed and lower by 3 positions in our rating.
Ryzen 5
2400G
Compare
Here are some of AMD’s closest competitors to the Core i3-10100:
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400G
105.86
AMD Ryzen 5 3350G
103.91
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
103.91
Intel Core i3-10100
100
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
99.54
AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B
96.78
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G
95.
29
Other processors
Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.
Core i3
10105
Compare
Ryzen 5
2400G
Compare
Core i3
10100F
Compare
Ryzen
Embedded V1807B
Compare
Core i5
9600T
Compare
Core i3
10105F
Compare
Recommended video cards
According to our statistics these video cards are most often used with Core i3-10100:
UHD
Graphics 630
19.
6%
GeForce GTX
1650
10.4%
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
8.7%
GeForce GTX
1650 SUPER
7%
GeForce GT
1030
5.1%
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
3.1%
Radeon RX
550
2.6%
GeForce GTX
1060 6GB
2.2%
GeForce GTX
1050
1.7%
GeForce GTX
1060 3GB
1.7%
User rating
Here you can see the evaluation of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.
Tips and comments
Here you can ask a question about the Core i3-10100 processor, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Intel Core i3 or i5, are these processors suitable for gaming?
- Post author: Vladislav Pavlov
- Published on: 05/31/2022
- Post category: Computers
Currently, Intel offers five main processor models, with i3 and i5 chips being the most popular mid-range gamers. So today we want to find out if these affordable CPUs can run your favorite games at impressive frame rates. Also in this article, we will discuss whether Intel Core i3 and i5 processors are suitable for gaming.
Intel Core i3 Processor
The speed of the processor, which is most easily thought of as clock speed, is measured in frequency units.
Modern processors are rated in units of GHz, or Gigahertz. In electronics, clock frequency refers to how many cycles or electronic pulses a chip can complete in one second.
Believe it or not, 1 GHz means one billion cycles per second in terms of processor speed. This means that Intel’s lowest cost Core i3 processor on the market today, capable of running at 4.1 GHz, can process data at 4.1 billion individual cycles per second. It also means smooth, uninterrupted performance across thousands of popular games.
The Intel Core i3 is not only a lightning-fast processor given its place in the Intel hierarchy, it’s also loaded with game-friendly features like smart caching and, in some versions, turbo boost.
Intel’s Smart Caching feature helps increase processor efficiency by storing data that may be needed soon, similar to how a computer’s RAM works.
Turbo Boost works differently to help you get a smoother and faster gaming experience. With Turbo Boost, you can overclock your hardware to faster speeds that are not required for daily word processing and other basic computer tasks.
All recent Core i3 processors have smart cache technology with at least 10 MB of space, and more expensive i3 models also have turbo boost capability.
The Intel Core i3 processor has two to ten cores, depending on which version you’re looking at. As a general rule, the more cores a processor has, the more powerful it is and the more expensive it is.
Intel’s Core i3 line currently has 14 different offerings, ranging from the least expensive 2-core chip to a 4.4GHz 10-core version that gives you an advantage when playing games with multi-core processors.
Intel Core i5 processor
Intel’s Core i5 processor is a step up from the i3 processor in both price and performance. With the Intel Core i5 chip, users can reach 4.9GHz without the need for overclocking and the risk of overheating their devices. This does not mean that overclocking is not possible on some versions of the i5, since it can be configured in the BIOS settings for more demanding games on some versions of the i5.
The
Intel Core i5 not only provides faster processing speed, but also has other advanced features that have attracted the attention of gamers, including high-resolution integrated graphics and updated graphics software support.
With processor-on-chip graphics features such as Intel UHD and Iris Xe systems, you can run games just like you would on a dedicated graphics card. Part of the processor hardware is dedicated to detecting and processing video and game graphics, while the rest of the processor can perform other tasks such as running the operating system and gaming software such as Steam.
There are currently 24 versions of the Intel Core i5 processor available in retail markets. With so many options, gamers can get confused about which one to choose. It’s worth starting with the total budget for a gaming PC, and then consider the features you need.
All versions of the Intel Core i5 have at least 4 cores, while higher-end, more gaming-friendly versions have up to 12 cores.
The top version of the i5, in terms of performance, has 20 MB of cache and can run at up to 4.9 GHz.
Some versions of the i5 have turbo boost, overclocking and improved support for DirectX and OpenGL, while the more affordable versions are less functional but will handle many moderate games just fine.
Intel Core i3 vs. Core i5
Both the i5 and i3 series include versions that support UHD and Iris GPUs, and some i5 versions allow users to take advantage of the top-end Iris Xe GPU. This makes both chips excellent candidates for gaming and other video-based computing applications.
The main difference between Core i5 and Core i3 processors is the number of cores and overall performance. Apart from the price difference. The Core i5 will likely set you back slightly more than the i3-series chips, depending on which versions of each you’re comparing. The Core i3 is great for budget builds, on the other hand, the Core i5 is perfect for mid-range gaming PCs.
In our opinion, for an up-and-coming gaming PC, we would advise getting an Intel Core i5 instead of an i3 (with a good dedicated GPU), as games become more demanding in terms of graphics and data processing over time.
Is the Intel Core i3 good for gaming?
Depending on what kind of games you like to play, the Intel Core i3 might be perfect for you. Minecraft, for example, does most of its rendering on one CPU core at a time, which means you’ll be able to play it on the cheapest i3 versions.
This also applies to many independent games that can use up to 4 cores but will not benefit from buying a processor with more than 4 cores. Counter-Strike: Global Offense (CSGO), another popular game, can also be run on i3.
Built with features such as smart cache and some models turbo boost, the Core i3 is a great choice for light to moderate gaming thanks to its high clock speed and dedicated cache.
Is the Intel Core i5 good for gaming?
If you play high-definition games, including Call of Duty and other AAA titles, then the i5 is a great choice for you. It has enhanced graphics chip capabilities, including the Intel Iris Xe system, as well as increased cache size and speed compared to the i3.