OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core 3 100U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£270PassMark multi-core score:12632N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1744TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core 3 100U Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 45%, Reviews score 25%, List score 20%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 56% of models
Score components

45%

6.6

Technical score

25%

6.6

Reviews score

20%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 56% of processors
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 64% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

â–²Better than 64%
6.6

Technical score

Technical score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 62% of models
Score components

60%

6.2

Performance

18%

6.8

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

7.7

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 62%
6.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models

6.6

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 66%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 20% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Best prices
    N/A~ £270
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core 3 100U

Technical score
Technical score
6.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 62% of models
Score components:

60%

6.2

Performance

18%

6.8

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

7.7

Integrated graphics

6.6
Reviews score
6.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 64% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

7.5
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1744
This processor uses the FCBGA1744 CPU socket, which is older than that of 73.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
6
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 47.7% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.2 GHz & 4x 0.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.2 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz which is lower than that of 83.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
12,632
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 12,632 in PassMark, which is higher than 52% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
10 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 10 MB which is larger than that of 51.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
L2 cache
4.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4.5 MB which is larger than that of 62.9% of processors.
L1 cache
544 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 544 KB which is larger than that of 72.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 71% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 96 GB of memory, which is more than 53.4% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 64EU
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 64EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 58.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
64
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 64 GPU execution units, which is more than 86.7% of processors and equal to 3.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
55 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 55 W which is lower than that of 59.7% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core 3 100U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 37.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,507 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,507 vs 2,558
  • 49.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,295 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,295 vs 1,535
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    January 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 37.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,507 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,507 vs 2,558
  • 49.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,295 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,295 vs 1,535
  • 39.4% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (7,260 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    7,260 vs 5,209
  • 6.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 41.7% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (544 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    544 KB vs 384 KB
  • 50% larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    4.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5200 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 50% more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (96 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    96 GB vs 64 GB
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 2.67x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    64 vs 24
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.2 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.2 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 16 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (12 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    12 vs 28
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP5
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.2 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.2 GHz & 4x0.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 16 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (12 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    12 vs 28
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
TrueTech Unboxing
≈ estimated
02/05/2024
Unboxing and review · boot time and display tests
Verdict
Intel Core 3 100U laptop is solid overall, with a sturdy build and good display quality.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core 3 100U

  • Excellent for basic daily tasks like web browsing, office work, and multimedia consumption
  • Strong single-core performance compared to previous entry-level generations
  • Energy-efficient 15W TDP helps maintain longer battery life in mobile devices
  • Supports modern memory standards including up to 96GB of DDR5-5200 RAM
  • Capable of light gaming on low-to-medium settings for older or less demanding titles
  • Features Intel Hyper-Threading on performance cores to assist with multitasking

What we don't like about Intel Core 3 100U

  • Integrated UHD graphics are limited and struggle with heavy 3D rendering or modern AAA games
  • Low core count (2 Performance + 4 Efficient) can become a bottleneck for heavy multi-threaded workloads
  • Pricing can be high compared to older 12th/13th gen i5 or AMD Ryzen alternatives that offer more cores
  • Locked multiplier prevents any overclocking to boost performance further
  • Noticeably slower in multi-threaded benchmarks compared to mid-range processors like the Core i5-1335U

Verdict

The Intel Core 3 100U is an entry-level mobile processor from the Raptor Lake-U Refresh series, featuring a hybrid architecture with 6 cores (2 Performance-cores and 4 Efficient-cores) and 8 threads. It operates at a base frequency of 1.2 GHz, boosting up to 4.7 GHz, and is equipped with 10 MB of Intel Smart Cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics with 64 execution units. Its main advantages include high energy efficiency with a 15W base power (scalable to 55W turbo) and modern connectivity support for DDR5-5200 memory and PCIe 4.0. However, it lacks advanced AI features found in newer architectures, has limited performance for heavy multi-threaded workloads due to the low core count, and does not support vPro management technology.

Compare Intel Core 3 100U with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core 3 100U and other processors

No results found