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 i3-1000G4 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£220PassMark multi-core score:3520N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.2 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1377TDP (Thermal design power):9 W

Intel Core i3-1000G4 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, 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–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components

40%

4.4

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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–¼Worse than 69% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 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–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 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 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

5.3

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 73%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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 25% 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
Where to buy
    N/A~ £220
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 i3-1000G4

Technical score
Technical score
4.4/ 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 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

5.3

Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

4.4
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 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–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

7.1
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
FCBGA1377
This processor uses the FCBGA1377 CPU socket, which is older than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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, AVX-512, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 74.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 1.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x1.1 GHz which is lower than that of 98.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,520
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,520 in PassMark, which is lower than 82.1% 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 10 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 51.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
L1 cache
160 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 160 KB which is smaller than that of 82.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 58.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,733 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,733 MHz, which is higher than that of 58.4% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-3733 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-3733 MHz, which is higher than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Plus Graphics
This processor uses the Intel Iris Plus Graphics integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 65.1% of processors and equal to that in 0.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
48
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 48 GPU execution units, which is more than 82.1% of processors and equal to 4.5% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 66.4% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
9 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 9 W which is lower than that of 95.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
9 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 9 W which is lower than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
9 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 9 W which is lower than that of 96.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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.
cTDP: 8 W
Show more

Intel Core i3-1000G4 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 80% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • 85.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (9 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    9 W vs 64 W
  • 80% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 24.3% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (58.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    58.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 24.3% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (58.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    58.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (48 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    48 vs 24
  • 80% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • 85.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (9 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    9 W vs 64 W
  • 80% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (9 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    9 W vs 45 W
  • 69.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,520 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,520 vs 11,469
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 31.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,741 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,741 vs 2,558
  • 56.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,262 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,262 vs 5,209
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 2.3% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-1000G4 has worse value for money than the average processor (7.12 vs 7.3).
    7.12 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, 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, AVX-512, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1377 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1377 vs FP5
  • 69.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,520 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,520 vs 11,469
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 31.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,741 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,741 vs 2,558
  • 56.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,262 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,262 vs 5,209
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 18.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,251 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,251 vs 1,535
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (11 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    11 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
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 58.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (160 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    160 KB vs 384 KB
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-1000G4

  • High energy efficiency with a very low 9W TDP, making it ideal for thin, fanless laptops and tablets.
  • Features Intel Iris Plus (48EU) integrated graphics, offering better performance than standard Intel UHD solutions for light multimedia.
  • Supports fast LPDDR4-3733 memory, which significantly boosts memory bandwidth compared to older generations.
  • Includes modern instruction sets like AVX-512 and support for Wi-Fi 6 and Thunderbolt integration.
  • Decent responsiveness for basic day-to-day tasks (web browsing, office work) thanks to improved IPC (Instructions Per Clock) in the Ice Lake architecture.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-1000G4

  • Strictly a dual-core processor (2 cores, 4 threads), which severely limits performance in modern multi-threaded applications.
  • Very low base clock speed of 1.1 GHz can lead to sluggishness under sustained heavy workloads.
  • Not suitable for modern gaming; performance is limited to casual titles or very low settings on older games.
  • Performance is heavily dependent on the laptop's cooling solution and can throttle quickly due to its power-constrained design.
  • Locked multiplier prevents any overclocking to improve performance.

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-1000G4 is an ultra-low-power, 10th Gen 'Ice Lake-Y' mobile processor featuring 2 cores and 4 threads, built on a 10nm process with a base frequency of 1.10 GHz and a max turbo boost of 3.20 GHz. Key characteristics include 4MB of L3 cache, support for fast LPDDR4-3733 memory, and integrated Iris Plus Graphics (48EUs), all operating within a highly efficient 9W TDP. Its main advantages are extreme energy efficiency, which allows for thin, fanless laptop designs, and support for modern instructions like AVX-512 and Wi-Fi 6. However, its low core count and limited clock speeds make it unsuitable for demanding workloads or modern gaming, and its locked multiplier prevents any overclocking.

Compare Intel Core i3-1000G4 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 i3-1000G4 and other processors

No results found