OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i3 1115g4 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£540PassMark benchmark result:5838N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1449TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i3 1115g4 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.8

Overall score

Score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

90%

4.8

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 67% of processors
4.8

Technical score

Technical score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

6.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

6.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 64% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £540

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 1115g4

Technical score
Technical score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

6.5

Cache & Architecture

10%

6.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.4

Integrated Graphics

4.8
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i3 1115g4 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.6/ 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–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

60%

4.8

Overall score

40%

7.7

Price

5.6
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1449
CPU socket
FCBGA1449
â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1449 CPU socket, which is older than that of 80.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Chipset
QM580, HM570, WM590
Chipset
QM580, HM570, WM590
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
This processor supports QM580, HM570, WM590 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 56.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.1 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.1 GHz which is lower than that of 56.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.0 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.0 GHz which is lower than that of 82.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm SuperFin
Foundry
Intel 10 nm SuperFin
â–² Better than 54% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm SuperFin foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 54% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
2.5 MB
L2 cache
2.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2.5 MB which is larger than that of 49.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
L1 cache
160 KB
L1 cache
160 KB
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 160 KB which is smaller than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
â–² Better than 63% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 63.4% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,733 MHz
Maximum memory speed
3,733 MHz
â–² Better than 60% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,733 MHz, which is higher than that of 60.2% of processors and equal to 1.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-3733 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-3733 MHz
â–² Better than 57% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4X-3733 MHz, which is higher than that of 56.8% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 63.4% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
48
Integrated GPU execution units
48
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 48 GPU execution units, which is more than 82.6% of processors and equal to 4.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
â–² Better than 69% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 85% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i3 1115g4 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.21x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,630.69
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,630.7 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,630.69 vs 387.66
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1.25 MB/core
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Tiger Lake
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 75% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    3 MB/core
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4X
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 4.21x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,630.69
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,630.7 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,630.69 vs 387.66
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1.25 MB/core
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Tiger Lake
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 75% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    3 MB/core
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 18.6% smaller die size
    Die size
    144 mm²
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (144 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    144 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4X
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 27.3% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    3,733 MHz
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (3733 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    3,733 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 2x more GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    48
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    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
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 61.9% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,064
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,064 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,064 vs 2,791
  • 44.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,838
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,838 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,838 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 36.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,071
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,071 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,071 vs 4,829
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 3.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 59.8% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    134.28
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    134.28 vs 334.1
  • 58.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    160 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 2.16x more expensive
    Intel Core i3 1115g4 is more expensive than the average processor (£540 vs £250).
    £540 vs £250
  • 16.3% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3 1115g4 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.64 vs 6.6).
    5.64 vs 6.56
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1449
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP4
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 61.9% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,064
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,064 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,064 vs 2,791
  • 44.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,838
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,838 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,838 vs 10,572.5
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 36.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,071
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,071 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,071 vs 4,829
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 3.0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 59.8% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    134.28
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    134.28 vs 334.1
  • 4.7% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
  • 58.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    160 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB

Video reviews

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

Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i3 1115g4

  • Efficient for everyday tasks like web browsing, video streaming, and office work
  • Strong single-core performance compared to some similar-tier processors, benefiting basic productivity apps
  • Capable of handling light gaming, such as Valorant or older titles like CS:GO, on low settings
  • Excellent energy efficiency, leading to lower power consumption and potentially better battery life in laptops
  • Supports modern technologies like AVX-512, PCIe Gen 4, and Wi-Fi 6
  • Integrated Iris Xe Graphics G4 is a significant upgrade over previous generation integrated graphics

What we don't like about Intel Core i3 1115g4

  • Dual-core architecture (2 cores/4 threads) is considered outdated for modern multitasking and intensive workloads
  • Prone to significant performance bottlenecks in CPU-intensive games and modern AAA titles
  • Not recommended for heavy creative work like high-resolution video editing or 3D rendering
  • Can struggle with system responsiveness if paired with low RAM (less than 8GB) or a traditional HDD
  • Vulnerable to thermal throttling in some laptop designs, which can reduce performance during extended use
  • Less competitive compared to quad-core alternatives like Ryzen 3 or higher-tier Intel Core i5 processors

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-1115G4 is a dual-core, four-thread processor from the 11th Gen Tiger Lake-UP3 family, built on a 10nm SuperFin process with a base frequency of 3.00 GHz and a max turbo boost of 4.10 GHz. It features 6MB of Intel Smart Cache, supports high-speed DDR4-3200 or LPDDR4x-3733 memory, and includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics for 11th Gen processors with a dynamic frequency up to 1.25 GHz. Main pros include its energy efficiency with a configurable TDP between 12W and 28W, support for PCIe 4.0, and solid single-core performance that makes it excellent for everyday office tasks, web browsing, and light media consumption. However, its primary cons are the limited dual-core architecture which struggles with heavy multitasking or modern AAA gaming, and underwhelming performance in demanding workloads like high-resolution video editing or rendering.

Compare Intel Core i3 1115g4 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 1115g4 and other processors

No results found