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 i3-10100 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95PassMark multi-core score:8512N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i3-10100 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 13 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-10100
5.4/10

Overall score

Score
5.4/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

7.8

Reviews score

25%

4.6

List score

10%

4.6

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 91% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 79%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 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 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 69%
7.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 61% of models

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

8.9

Popularity

Grades by review (13)
6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each 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.
▲Better than 61%
4.6

List score

List score
4.6/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • intel-core-i3-10100
  • intel-core-i3-10100
  • intel-core-i3-10100
  • intel-core-i3-10100
  • intel-core-i3-10100
intel-core-i3-10100
intel-core-i3-10100
intel-core-i3-10100
intel-core-i3-10100
intel-core-i3-10100
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i3-10100

Based on 3 · 7

Reviewers praise the gaming performance and value, but find multi-core performance weak and the stock cooler underwhelming.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i3-10100

Based on 94 owners sharing their experience in online comments

44%positive16%mixed40%negative

Owners value its budget price and gaming performance, while complaints center on low frame rates, heat, and setup failures.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners see frame drops and stutter in games, often 20 to 30 percent below published benchmarks.16
  • Some owners get no display or a boot failure, with an orange light on the motherboard; one said a BIOS update did not fix it.8
  • Owners report temperatures around 70 to 90°C during gaming, and some with the stock cooler ask how to lower them.4
  • A GTX 1050 owner reports some games do not launch, apparently starting on the CPU's integrated graphics instead of the card.4
  • Owners with 4 GB of RAM cannot play some games, and one says 8 GB is not enough, so 16 GB is recommended.3
  • Owners with 3200 MHz RAM find the board only runs it at 2666 MHz, and say the motherboard does not support higher speeds.3
  • Owners say the newest games need lower graphics settings to reach stable frame rates.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-10100

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 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 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components:

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
7.8
List score
4.6
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.8
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1200
This processor uses the LGA1200 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.2% of processors.
Chipset
Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, Q570, W480, W580
This processor supports Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, Q570, W480, W580 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 66% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
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, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED instruction sets, which is broader support than 93.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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
4.3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.3 GHz which is lower than that of 51.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
8,512
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 8,512 in PassMark, which is lower than 57.4% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
90 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 90 W which is higher than that of 60% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% 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
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i3-10100 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 2.73x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (930 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    930 vs 340.075
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each 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.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • 2.63x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-10100 is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
    £95 vs £250
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each 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.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 2.63x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-10100 is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
    £95 vs £250
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, RDRAND, RDSEED vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • 2.73x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (930 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    930 vs 340.075
  • 24.4% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (495.1 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    495.1 vs 398.015
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 41.0% lower list score
    List score
    4.6/ 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 (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    4.6 vs 7.8
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 36.1% lower sentiment score
    4.6 vs 7.2
  • 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), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec 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), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 41.0% lower list score
    List score
    4.6/ 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 (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    4.6 vs 7.8
  • 36.1% lower sentiment score
    4.6 vs 7.2
  • 7.4% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-10100 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.78 vs 7.3).
    6.78 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 25.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,512 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,512 vs 11,469
  • 19.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,215 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,215 vs 5,209
  • 8.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (448 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    448 vs 490
  • 18.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,284 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,284 vs 2,804.5
  • 6.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,432 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,432 vs 1,535
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 11.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec 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), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 40.6% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (90 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    90 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

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

8.0
TechteamGB
≈ estimated
17/03/2021
Hands-on review · gaming, Blender and streaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core i3-10100 is great for the cheapest gaming build with a mid-range GPU, but weak for streaming.
7.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
14/07/2020
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks, temperatures and power
Verdict
Intel Core i3-10100 offers good budget gaming value, but it is about even with AMD and lacks PCIe 4.0.
8.0
Hardware Numb3rs
≈ estimated
22/06/2020
Gaming benchmarks · memory tuning and XMP comparison
Verdict
Intel Core i3-10100 is very good for its price at 60Hz, but memory limits hurt performance.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
01/06/2020
Gaming benchmark · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-10100 nearly matches the Ryzen 3 3300X in games and drives three monitors, but the Ryzen is clearly better for productivity.
6.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
18/02/2021
Benchmark review · Entry-level CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-10100 runs cool and handles everyday tasks, but trails AMD's Ryzen chips in games and needs a new LGA 1200 motherboard.
6.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
18/02/2021
Benchmark review · Basic desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-10100 suits basic PCs and integrated-graphics use, but trails AMD's Ryzen 3 chips and is stuck on a dead-end LGA 1200 platform.
8.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
24/06/2020
Benchmark test · Gaming desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-10100 is a close rival to the Ryzen 3 3300X in games, using less power and running cooler, but it falls behind in productivity.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-10100

  • Excellent value for budget-friendly gaming and general computing builds.
  • Features 4 cores and 8 threads, offering a significant performance boost over previous generations.
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 is useful for office work and light tasks without a discrete GPU.
  • Operates with low power consumption (65W TDP) and generally runs cool under standard workloads.
  • Strong single-threaded performance makes it reliable for day-to-day productivity and older games.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-10100

  • Requires a newer LGA 1200 motherboard, which may necessitate an expensive platform upgrade for older system owners.
  • Integrated graphics performance is weak and unsuitable for modern AAA gaming.
  • Locked multiplier prevents overclocking for users seeking additional performance gains.
  • Face stiff competition from AMD Ryzen 3 alternatives that often offer better value and performance for the price.
  • Limited L3 cache (6 MB) can lead to performance bottlenecks in some CPU-intensive applications.

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-10100 is a 10th-generation 'Comet Lake' desktop processor featuring 4 cores and 8 threads, a significant upgrade over previous i3 models due to the inclusion of Hyper-Threading. It operates at a base frequency of 3.6 GHz with a maximum turbo boost of 4.3 GHz and includes 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache with a 65W TDP. Main pros include its cost-effective performance for budget gaming and office tasks, efficient power usage, and the presence of integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630, which supports 4K resolution at 60Hz and up to three displays. However, it requires an LGA 1200 socket motherboard, its 14nm architecture and integrated graphics are considered aging, and it faces strong competition from similar budget-tier processors that may offer better multi-core performance for the price.

Compare Intel Core i3-10100 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 i3-10100 and other processors

No results found