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 i3-1125G4 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£390PassMark multi-core score:9269N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1449TDP (Thermal design power):12 W

Intel Core i3-1125G4 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

40%

5.5

Technical score

25%

5.5

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

â–¼Worse than 68% of processors
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 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 75% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 75%
5.5

Technical score

Technical score
5.5/ 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 54% of models
Score components

60%

4.7

Performance

18%

6.4

Architecture

10%

5.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

8.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 54%
5.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 72% of models

5.5

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 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–¼Worse than 72%
?

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~ £390
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 i3-1125G4

Technical score
Technical score
5.5/ 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 54% of models
Score components:

60%

4.7

Performance

18%

6.4

Architecture

10%

5.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

8.5

Integrated graphics

5.5
Reviews score
5.5
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 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 75% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

6.9
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
FCBGA1449
This processor uses the FCBGA1449 CPU socket, which is older than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 1% 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
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% 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
3.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 74.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz which is lower than that of 74.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
9,269
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 9,269 in PassMark, which is lower than 55.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm SuperFin
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm SuperFin foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 53% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 5 MB which is larger than that of 62.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
L1 cache
320 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 61.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,733 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,733 MHz, which is higher than that of 58.4% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-3733 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4X-3733 MHz, which is higher than that of 55.5% of processors and equal to 0.3% 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
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 61.7% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
48
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 48 GPU execution units, which is more than 82.1% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 8.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 97.2% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
12 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 12 W which is lower than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
12 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 12 W which is lower than that of 94.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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: 28 W
Show more

Intel Core i3-1125G4 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 7.13x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,426 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,426 vs 340.075
  • 2.5x more L2 per 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
  • 73.3% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    12 W vs 45 W
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 73.3% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    12 W vs 45 W
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 66.7% larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    5 MB vs 3 MB
  • 7.13x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,426 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,426 vs 340.075
  • 2.5x more L2 per 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
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    5 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    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
  • 18.6% smaller die size
    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
  • 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 PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 27.3% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (59.7 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    59.7 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 2x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (48 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    48 vs 24
  • 73.3% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    12 W vs 45 W
  • 73.3% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    12 W vs 45 W
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 17.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 72% of models

    5.5

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 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.
    5.5 vs 6.7
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 22.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,014 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,014 vs 5,209
  • 19.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,269 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    9,269 vs 11,469
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • 17.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 72% of models

    5.5

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 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.
    5.5 vs 6.7
  • 56% more expensive
    Intel Core i3-1125G4 is more expensive than the average processor (£390 vs £250).
    £390 vs £250
  • 6.3% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-1125G4 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.86 vs 7.3).
    6.86 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • 15.9% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 22.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,014 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,014 vs 5,209
  • 19.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,269 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    9,269 vs 11,469
  • 5.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,421 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,421 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 vs 28

Video reviews

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

7.0
The Spy Guys
≈ estimated
03/07/2022
Gaming test · God of War on integrated graphics
Verdict
Intel Core i3-1125G4 can run God of War, though graphics look rough at low settings.
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-1125G4

  • Excellent value for money, often performing close to 11th Gen i5 models in everyday tasks
  • Features 4 cores and 8 threads, a rare upgrade for the i3 line that significantly improves multitasking over dual-core alternatives
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics (Xe architecture) provides a noticeable step up for light gaming compared to previous generations
  • Highly power efficient, making it ideal for school and office use with long-lasting battery life
  • Solid single-thread performance for fast web browsing and app launching

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-1125G4

  • Integrated graphics struggle with modern AAA titles, often requiring 720p low settings to maintain playable frame rates
  • Can be difficult to find in some markets as it was released 'quietly' compared to the standard i3-1115G4
  • Performance is heavily dependent on the laptop's cooling solution and TDP limits set by the manufacturer
  • May face bottlenecks in CPU-intensive modern games when compared to newer 12th Gen or Ryzen 5 alternatives
  • Higher TDP (up to 28W) generally prevents use in completely fanless, passively cooled laptop designs

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-1125G4 is an 11th Gen Tiger Lake-UP3 laptop processor built on a 10nm SuperFin process, uniquely featuring 4 cores and 8 threads—a significant upgrade over typical dual-core i3 chips. It operates at a base clock of 2.0 GHz with a maximum turbo frequency of 3.7 GHz, supported by 8MB of Intel Smart Cache and integrated UHD Graphics with 48 execution units. Its main advantages include high energy efficiency with a configurable TDP of 12W–28W, support for PCIe 4.0, and strong multi-threaded performance that rivals older i7 models for everyday productivity. However, it is limited by a relatively low maximum turbo clock compared to i5/i7 counterparts and integrated graphics that, while capable for light tasks, remain a bottleneck for modern gaming and demanding creative workloads.

Compare Intel Core i3-1125G4 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 i3-1125G4 and other processors

No results found