Intel CPU BX8070110100F Core i3-10100F / 3.6GHz / 6MB LGA1200 4C / 8T

Product Information

The i3-10100 still trailed the 3300X at 1440p. Here the Ryzen chip was 9% faster when comparing the DDR4-3200 configurations. Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-10100 and Core i5-10400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology. Instruction set extensions Here's a look at code compilation performance and this time we're looking at a 37% performance improvement for the Core i3-10100 over the 9100F. Where the 10100 buries the 9100F is in the Blender Open Data benchmark, where the newer Intel processor was 40% faster. That's a great result and overall performance is reasonably good despite the 10100 coming in near the bottom of our graph.

Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-10100 and Core i5-10400F integrated GPUs. Number of displays supported The margins seen in Rainbow Six Siege don't paint a nice picture for the i3-10100 either. Here the 3300X was 21% faster when comparing 1% low data. Granted, the Core i3 processor managed over 160 fps at all times, so the margins might be somewhat irrelevant. When it comes to power consumption, we see that the Core i3-10100 uses slightly less power than the Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X in this task, however you have to remember that the 3300X was 17% faster in this test, so performance per watt still goes in AMD's favor. Regardless, when talking about total system consumption of under 150 watts for a desktop PC, it doesn't matter too much. Intel® Iris® Xe Graphics only: to use the Intel® Iris® Xe brand, the system must be populated with 128-bit (dual channel) memory. Otherwise, use the Intel® UHD brand.The R3 3300X was 20% faster in this test and this suggests for core-heavy workloads the Ryzen processor is going to be quite a tad faster. The Core i3-10100 managed to match the Core i7-7700K in the DaVinci Resolve Studio 16 benchmark. Compared to Ryzen, the R3 3100 was 3% faster and the 3300X was a more convincing 7% faster. Not big margins as before, but the trend of Ryzen 3 winning on the productivity side continues.

We test CPUs using a variety of synthetic benchmarks that offer proprietary scores, as well as real-world tests using consumer apps like 7-Zip, and 3D games such as Far Cry 5. For chips at the tier of the Intel Core i3-10100, we also run several games on the IGP. Included in the charts below is a variety of like-priced competing and sibling AMD and Intel CPUs, as well as some much higher-end ones for context. CPU-Centric Tests: Four Cores Should Do More The Night Raid 3DMark run shows just how much work AMD has put into elevating its APUs in the past several years from afterthoughts into serious contenders. Both the Ryzen 3200G and 3400G smash through this synthetic run, and provide one of the starkest examples of the limits of Intel's older UHD Graphics options in today's climate. Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-10100 and Core i5-10400F. PCIe versionThat margin is heavily reduced at 1440p and now the 3300X is just a few frames faster, but still not a good result for the 10100. APIs supported by Core i3-10100 and Core i5-10400F integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included. DirectX Ghost Recon Breakpoint isn't particularly CPU demanding and here the i3-10100 had no trouble matching the 3300X to come in just behind the higher-end, more expensive processors. We'd just like to note that comparing the operating temperature of the i3-10100 to something like the R3 3300X is a pointless exercise, you're better off just looking at power consumption because temperatures can easily end up being an apples to oranges comparison. Where the temperature probe is located in the CPU can heavily influence the reading; a good example of this can be seen when looking at AMD GPUs which include a hotspot readout as well as an edge temperature which is often much lower. Still, for those not satisfied with that, the Ryzen 3 3300X using the Wraith Stealth box cooler reached 75C under the same test conditions while the R3 3100 reached 65C. We see even slimmer margins at 1440p, where the 10100 was able to deliver the same gaming experience as the 10600K.

Intel processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each processor family, not across different processor families. See http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html for details. In the case of the MSI B460 Mortar, this board has a 255W sustained boost limit, so even the 10900K will run without power limits, maintaining an all-core frequency of 4.8 GHz which is extremely impressive, though we've yet to properly measure VRM thermals. Speaking of TDP, when we reviewed the Core i5-10400 a week ago we did so without any power limits as only Asus motherboards seem to enforce these limits. This upset a few people who claimed this wouldn't be indicative of performance on more affordable B and H-series motherboards, and fair enough, this is something we should have touched on. As it turns out, that's not actually the case, the i5-10400 will deliver the exact same results on all H410 and B360 boards to what we showed on the Z490 board. This isn't because most H410 and B360 boards won't adhere to the Intel spec, but because the 10400 doesn't actually exceed the TDP. It's of course a weak GPU implementation from a performance perspective, however for desktop work it is capable of handling up to three monitors and up to 4K resolution at 60Hz (the exact combination will depend on a number of factors like motherboard/output support). Thus, the 10100 makes sense and can be a more cost effective option for some. Interestingly, increasing the resolution which can increase CPU load in games sees the 10100 fall behind the 3300X by a 19% margin when comparing 1% low performance. Despite both having a 4-core/8-thread configuration, the 3300X manages to deliver the more consistent experience in Battlefield V and that's likely a result of featuring over twice as much L3 cache.Here's a look at AES-256 multi-thread performance. To encrypt/decrypt a file using the AES algorithm, the file must undergo a set of complex computational steps which can be sped up dramatically using multi-core CPUs. That said the 10100 isn't a great deal faster than the 9100F in the SiSoft Sandra benchmark, despite it's Hyper-Threading support and as a result the 3300X is up to 45% faster. Granted, those chips were also tested on beefy AM4 motherboards attached to liquid cooling systems that cost as much as or more than the CPU—but we digress. If you want a chip that will far outstrip the Core i3-10100 in gaming results with a dedicated GPU, the Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3300X provide consistently faster competition in nearly every metric we test on.

Based on our evaluation, the 10100F's 4.30 GHz single-core max turbo boost frequency is excellent for performance with the latest graphics-intense games. You can maintain these frequencies with a high-end cooler. On single-threaded tasks the Intel Core i3-10100 performed well, but oddly seemed to struggle against its predecessor, the Intel Core i3-9100, depending on the benchmark. Despite having four more threads to work with compared to the i3-9100, the i3-10100 couldn't beat the chip it's meant to replace regularly enough to walk out as a unanimous victor. As for single-core performance, the 10100 is decent and while certainly not particularly strong relative to the competition, these are the results you'd expect from an Intel processor capped at 4.3 GHz.

Pricing History

The faster memory doesn't make a huge difference for the Core i3 processor, though we are looking at a 6% improvement for the 1% low. When looking at the DDR4-3200 configuration we see that the 10100 is comparable to the Core i5-9400F which isn't unexpected, nor is the fact that it was 6% slower than the 7700K on average. A Word About B460 Motherboards, What We Learned We found that, in general, more cores do provide better performance in professional tools and when running multiple applications simultaneously. Processors that support 64-bit computing on Intel® architecture require an Intel 64 architecture-enabled BIOS.