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 i3-14100F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£90PassMark multi-core score:?N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):58 W

Intel Core i3-14100F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 5 expert and video reviews and 7 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-14100F
7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User 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
▲ Better than 72% of models
Score components

40%

7.0

Technical score

25%

7.0

Reviews score

15%

8.3

List score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

9.3

User score

▲Better than 72% of processors
8.2

Value for money

Value for money
8.2/ 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
★ Better than 91% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

★Better than 91%
7.0

Technical score

Technical score
7.0/ 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
▲ Better than 68% of models
Score components

60%

6.7

Performance

18%

6.9

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 68%
7.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.0/ 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
▼ Worse than 62% of models

7.0

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

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
▼Worse than 62%
9.3

User score

User score
9.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 75% of models

80%

9.6

Rating

20%

8.3

Popularity

▲Better than 75%
8.3

List score

List score
8.3/ 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 15% 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 (7)
List score: in 7 of 72 lists (10%)
★Better than 97%
  • intel-core-i3-14100f
  • intel-core-i3-14100f
  • intel-core-i3-14100f
  • intel-core-i3-14100f
  • intel-core-i3-14100f
  • intel-core-i3-14100f
intel-core-i3-14100f
intel-core-i3-14100f
intel-core-i3-14100f
intel-core-i3-14100f
intel-core-i3-14100f
intel-core-i3-14100f
Best prices
*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.
Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #91 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-14100F

Technical score
Technical score
7.0/ 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
▲ Better than 68% of models
Score components:

60%

6.7

Performance

18%

6.9

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.0
Reviews score
7.0
User score
9.3
List score
8.3
Value for money
Value for money
8.2/ 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
★ Better than 91% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

10

Price

8.2
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
LGA1700
This processor uses the LGA1700 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 8.4% of processors.
Chipset
?
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, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% 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
4.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 50.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
?
Show more
What reviewers say
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 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% 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
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to 6.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 82.2% of processors and equal to 6.8% of processors.
Show more
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)
58 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 58 W which is higher than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
58 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 58 W which is higher than that of 66.3% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
110 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 110 W which is higher than that of 67.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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
?
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i3-14100F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 75.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,692 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,692 vs 1,535
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 67% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,700 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,700 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 27.4% higher user score
    User score
    9.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 75% of models

    80%

    9.6

    Rating

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    9.3 vs 7.3
  • 11.9% better value for money
    Intel Core i3-14100F has better value for money than the average processor (8.2 vs 7.3).
    8.2 vs 7.33
  • 2.78x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-14100F is cheaper than the average processor (£90 vs £250).
    £90 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    2024 vs 2020
  • 75.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,692 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,692 vs 1,535
  • 67% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,700 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,700 vs 5,209
  • 6.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 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
  • 2.3x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (11.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    11.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 63.8% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 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, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 71.9% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (110 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    110 W vs 64 W
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 28.9% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, CET, MBEC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, CET, MBEC 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 71.9% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (110 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    110 W vs 64 W
  • 28.9% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W
  • 28.9% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (58 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    58 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

6.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
23/03/2024
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and comparison with 1200F
Verdict
Intel Core i3-14100F is impressive, but only a small step up from the 1200F, so a Core i5 is better if the budget allows.
Not graded
Overview video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 3 · 2

Reviewers like that it stays cool and handles games well, but agree the low core count holds it back.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

5.0
noobfeed.com
≈ estimated
03/05/2026
Hands-on test · DDR4 vs DDR5
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-14100F runs well with fast DDR5 memory in many games, but its four cores fall behind six-core chips in demanding titles.
7.0
hwcooling.net
≈ estimated
19/02/2024
Cooling and power test · Wind tunnel
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-14100F is the fastest Core i3 yet but the hungriest, so buyers who want low power should consider the 13100F or 12100F.
9.3
charlestech.fr
✓ explicit
09/03/2024
Benchmark test · Light gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-14100F is a cool-running quad-core for office work, video calls and light games, not for editing or the latest big titles.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i3-14100F

  • A 4.7 GHz boost clock keeps short tasks quick.
  • Eight threads let several programs share the chip at once.
  • Memory support reaches 192 GB, which suits large projects.
  • DDR4 and DDR5 both work, so the motherboard sets the memory type.
  • PCIe 5.0 and 4.0 lanes suit the newest fast drives and graphics cards.
  • The box includes a cooler, so you can build without buying one.

What we don't like about Intel Core i3-14100F

  • There is no integrated graphics, so a graphics card is required.
  • Boost power reaches 110 W, which asks for good cooling and a solid power supply.
  • Four cores can feel tight for heavy video editing or long renders.
  • The chip is not unlocked, so overclocking is not an option.
  • Two memory channels cap bandwidth at 76.8 GB/s for memory-heavy work.

Verdict

Boost clocks up to 4.7 GHz make the Intel Core i3-14100F a quick and sensible base for a budget PC. It is a Raptor Lake Refresh chip with 1.25 MB of L2 and 3 MB of L3 cache per core, which keeps frequently used data close to the processor. Memory support reaches 192 GB on DDR4 or DDR5 at up to 4800 MHz, so the motherboard decides which type you use and there is room to grow. Eight threads handle several everyday programs at once, and the box includes a cooler. The one real drawback is that it has no integrated graphics, so a separate graphics card is needed before the PC will show a picture. It suits a buyer building a budget office or gaming PC who already has a graphics card or plans to buy one.

Compare Intel Core i3-14100F 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 i3-14100F and other processors

No results found