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 i3-10100F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£55PassMark multi-core score:8719N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i3-10100F Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-10100F
6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 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 55% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

8.4

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 55% of processors
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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 65% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 65%
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

5.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 69%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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–² Better than 66% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
6 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.
â–²Better 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 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
  • intel-core-i3-10100f
intel-core-i3-10100f
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 i3-10100F

Based on 1 · 6

Reviewers agree it handles games really well, though some grumble about memory limits and the stock cooler.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i3-10100F

Based on 118 owners sharing their experience in online comments

68%positive7%mixed25%negative

Owners value its affordable, capable gaming performance, while CPU bottlenecks and stuttering in demanding games are the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • In CPU-heavy games like Fortnite, the processor can sit near 100% load and hold back a faster graphics card.9
  • In demanding games like Cyberpunk and Monster Hunter World, frame rates can fall to around 40 to 60 FPS at higher settings.9
  • Some owners see stutters, lag, or random freezes, especially in Fortnite, CS2, and PUBG, and say more RAM or faster memory helps.8
  • Owners say it ages poorly and that the jump to newer generations like the 12100F is a big improvement.5
  • On many H410 and some H510 boards, RAM is held at 2666 MHz, and some owners say BIOS updates locked memory speed.4
  • Owners say the board cost on H410 and H510 boards is high relative to the processor's low price.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-10100F

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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components:

60%

4.1

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

5.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

4.6
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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 65% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.6
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, W480
This processor supports Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, W480 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 64.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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
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
8,719
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 8,719 in PassMark, which is lower than 56.8% of processors.
Show more
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)
2,666 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is higher than that of 89.2% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
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
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
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 i3-10100F 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.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    6 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.
    7.9 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
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-10100F is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    6 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 4.55x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-10100F is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • 16.7% higher sentiment score
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, 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).
    AES-NI, 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
  • 77.4% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (76.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    76.92 vs 340.075
  • 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
  • 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, 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).
    AES-NI, 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
  • 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
  • 77.4% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (76.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    76.92 vs 340.075
  • 24% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,719 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,719 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 13.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,498 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,498 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 5.6% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,449 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,449 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 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

6.0
Royalsoft
≈ estimated
29/12/2021
Unboxing and review · cooler and integrated graphics issues
Verdict
Intel Core i3-10100F is a strong performer, but its weak stock fan and missing integrated graphics hold it back.
7.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
15/06/2022
Comparison benchmark · budget CPU against newer 12100F
Verdict
Gets the job done on a tight budget, but the newer 12100F is the better buy.
9.0
GamingPcDealz
≈ estimated
08/03/2021
Hands-on review · 4K gaming benchmarks vs Ryzen 9
Verdict
Intel Core i3-10100F can hit 60 FPS at 4K for a budget processor.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-10100F

  • Excellent value for money, often cited as one of the cheapest entry-level gaming processors available
  • Low power consumption with a 65W TDP, making it very energy efficient
  • Runs cool under load; the included stock cooler is generally sufficient for thermal management
  • Strong gaming performance for its price, often matching or exceeding older i7 processors in single-threaded tasks
  • Features Hyper-threading (4 cores/8 threads), providing better multitasking and gaming stability than previous i3 generations

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

  • No integrated graphics (F-series), requiring a dedicated graphics card for any display output
  • LGA 1200 socket is considered a 'dead end' for future upgrades compared to newer Intel platforms
  • Mediocre multitasking performance; can struggle or bottleneck in heavy multithreaded workloads
  • Small 6MB L3 cache compared to competitors like Ryzen 3 3300X, which can limit performance in certain applications
  • Limited memory speeds on budget motherboards (B/H series) can significantly impact overall gaming performance

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-10100F is a budget-oriented 10th Gen 'Comet Lake' desktop processor featuring 4 cores and 8 threads with Intel Hyper-Threading technology. It operates at a 3.6 GHz base frequency, reaching a max turbo boost of 4.3 GHz, and includes 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache with a 65W TDP. Key advantages include exceptional price-to-performance for entry-level gaming, support for up to 128 GB of DDR4-2666 memory, and compatibility with LGA 1200 socket motherboards. However, as an 'F' series model, it lacks integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated GPU for any display output, and it is limited by a locked multiplier that prevents traditional overclocking.

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

No results found