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

Product Information

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. 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. We see even slimmer margins at 1440p, where the 10100 was able to deliver the same gaming experience as the 10600K. 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.

You may want to know that the last part of the Core i3-10100 testing was carried out on the MSI B460 Mortar, but we didn't bother graphing that data as technically you've just seen the results. On this board the 10100 performs exactly like the DDR4-2666 configuration just shown. As noted earlier, this B460 board doesn't limit the 10100, and the same is true for the Core i5-10400. Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-10100 and Core i5-10400F are enumerated here. AMD-V 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. 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. Our last application benchmark is Adobe After Effects, where the 10100 was slightly slower than the R3 3100 and 3300X, so pretty competitive performance in this test.The i3-10100 still trailed the 3300X at 1440p. Here the Ryzen chip was 9% faster when comparing the DDR4-3200 configurations.

Again we're seeing impressive gains for the Core i3-10100 over the 9100F, this time improving performance in the V-Ray benchmark by a 33% margin. That improvement is overshadowed by the fact that the 3300X is still over 20% faster.

Lithography

See http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html?wapkw=hyper+threading for more information including details on which processors support Intel® HT Technology. Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i3-10100 and Core i5-10400F integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces. 4K resolution support Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-10100 and Core i5-10400F integrated GPUs. Number of displays supported

Gears Tactics results has the i3-10100 performing slower than the 7700K again. In fact, here it's only able to roughly match the 9100F, with 10% better 1% low performance. But even so, we're looking at gaming performance where the 3300X is some 16% faster. Well...that's not great for Intel's Core i3. The Ryzen 3 3200G, while not comparatively the best deal against its older brother, the Ryzen 5 3400G, looks like a downright steal compared to the Core i3-10100, if you'll be relying on the AMD chip's Radeon Graphics IGP for gaming. Next up we have Far Cry New Dawn. The 1080p data shows the 10100 performing a little slower than the 3300X when using DDR4-3200 memory, though again it's the 1% lows that suffer the most and here the 3300X was 15% faster. Meanwhile, the faster 3200 memory boosted the average frame rate by 7%, but only improved the 1% low figure by just 3%. APIs supported by Core i3-10100 and Core i5-10400F integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included. DirectX

This time we're looking at Core i5-9400F like performance in the Adobe Premiere Pro benchmark and that meant the R3 3100 was 6% faster than the 3300X 18% faster. 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. 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. 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 Ryzen 3 3200G, as its own budget gaming engine, regularly comes within spitting distance of hitting 60fps in 1080p, and it even manages to cross the boundary in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, versus the Intel Core i3-10100's result of just 35fps in the same benchmark.

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. 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. 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. 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.We've experienced that single-core performance is essential for some games, as many don't take full advantage of multiple cores. The 10100 performs quite well in the Adobe Photoshop benchmark, matching the Ryzen 3 3100 and coming in just behind the Core i7-7700K. Surprisingly though the 3300X was still 17% faster. 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.