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 i3-10110U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark multi-core score:3824N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1528TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i3-10110U Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 71% of models
Score components

40%

4.1

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

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

▼Worse than 71% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

▼Worse than 71%
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 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 83% of models
Score components

60%

3.3

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 83%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 50% of models

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 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 50%
?

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~ £260
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 i3-10110U

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

60%

3.3

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

6.3

Integrated graphics

4.1
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

7.0
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
FCBGA1528
This processor uses the FCBGA1528 CPU socket, which is older than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% 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, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% 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
4.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.1 GHz which is lower than that of 58.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.1 GHz which is lower than that of 93.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,824
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,824 in PassMark, which is lower than 79.3% 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
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
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 58.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-2933 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 58.6% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 620 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 54.4% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
23
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 23 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51% of processors and equal to 0.5% 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
VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 73.9% of processors and equal to 3.5% 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)
?
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: 25 W
Show more

Intel Core i3-10110U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.11x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1,034 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,034 vs 490
  • 4.1x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,630.7 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,630.69 vs 398.015
  • 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
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 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.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 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.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 2.11x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1,034 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,034 vs 490
  • 4.1x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,630.7 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,630.69 vs 398.015
  • 43.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (100 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    100 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 66.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,824 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,824 vs 11,469
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 58.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,167 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,167 vs 5,209
  • 63.1% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,034 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,034 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.1 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
  • 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
  • 3.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-10110U has worse value for money than the average processor (7.03 vs 7.3).
    7.03 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard 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 (FCBGA1528 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1528 vs FP5
  • 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
  • 66.7% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,824 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,824 vs 11,469
  • 58.4% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,167 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,167 vs 5,209
  • 63.1% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,034 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,034 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.1 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
  • 17% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,122 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,122 vs 2,558
  • 20.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,215 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,215 vs 1,535
  • 6.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 7 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (21 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    21 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 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
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VP9 (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
Electronic Expert Ritik
≈ estimated
29/06/2022
Short review · battery, build and display
Verdict
Intel Core i3-10110U powers a slim, well-built laptop with good battery life, a sensible pick for students.
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-10110U

  • Efficient for everyday basic tasks like web browsing and office productivity
  • Responsive single-thread performance makes the system feel snappy for simple apps
  • Low power consumption (15W TDP) contributes to better battery life in ultraportable laptops
  • High turbo clock speed (up to 4.1 GHz) allows for quick page and app loading
  • Often found in affordable, budget-conscious laptops and mini-PCs

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-10110U

  • Limited to 2 cores and 4 threads, leading to poor multitasking performance
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics are outdated and struggle with modern gaming and 4K video
  • Frequently reaches high temperatures (90°C+) during demanding loads
  • Noticeable slowdowns or 'hiccups' when handling media-heavy web pages or many open tabs
  • Poor value proposition compared to newer or slightly more expensive quad-core alternatives like the i5-1035G1

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-10110U is a 10th-generation 'Comet Lake' mobile processor featuring 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base frequency of 2.10 GHz and a max turbo boost of 4.10 GHz. Built on a 14nm process with a 15W TDP, it includes 4MB of Smart Cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics capable of 4K support at 60Hz. Its main advantages include high single-core turbo speeds for responsive daily tasks, excellent power efficiency for prolonged battery life in ultrabooks, and support for up to 64GB of DDR4-2666 memory. However, its primary drawbacks are limited multi-core performance due to having only two physical cores, a dated 14nm architecture compared to newer competitors, and integrated graphics that are insufficient for modern, demanding gaming or heavy video editing.

Compare Intel Core i3-10110U 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 i3-10110U and other processors

No results found